Tyler Purcell

I mean you can't stop copyright infringement entirely, it's impossible. People have been doing it forever and it's just part of the world we live in. What Youtube CAN do is not allow any two frames of the same content to be posted anywhere else on the site. So if you make a video, if you post that video, nobody else can. They do this already, but the system doesn't really work in that way. I've had to pull down countless videos from youtube and it's a pain, they also get posted back up again right away. Any site that does stop people from posting copyrighted material, will be a failure. This is because most people aren't that creative and lets just be honest with ourselves, most of youtube is full of those crappy videos people throw together full of copyrighted content. If everyone had to go out and make 100% original content, both image and audio, very few people would bother and the site would fail almost immediately. It's kind of a catch 22 and it's why we don't see my idea of not being able to post 2 of the same frames, a reality. They can do it, but they don't do it because it would absolutely obliterate the site. So yea... love the idea for content makers like myself who care about those things and take pride in making original content, but how many are we? 5%? Maybe less? :shrug:

Sure and you are lightening in a bottle. You are one of maybe a dozen filmmakers each year who find their way through the maze. There are literally thousands of filmmakers who spend years making good products, that will never consider themselves professional filmmakers because they never got lucky enough. Most of them have desk jobs and filmmaking is a hobby. At least living in So Cal, filmmaking is how people pay their bills, so it's just a matter of time before something you make, gets you recognition. You don't have to re-mortgage the home, you don't need to beg money from friends, you don't need to max out credit cards, you don't even need a great script. If you work hard, if you do good work within the industry, you will be successful eventually. How long it takes, does matter on how good you are and some luck. This is a reason why people live in "media cities", not saying LA is the only one because it's not. New York, Chicago, Atlanta, these are also media cities. . Well sure, you have really nothing to do with this subject. You've already progressed above the level of short subject filmmaker. Most filmmakers don't live in L.A. because they don't need to, they've progressed to a higher level. If I was in your position, with a good distribution chain, I'd live somewhere entire different too. Unfortunately, most of us aren't in that position, so we live where the work is.

A Troll is someone who follows around someone else and makes comments about everything they say, mostly negative. I do think JD does have a point and we'll see how the future presents itself.

Yep very true! I just prey Kodak somehow made a mistake, ya never know! :)

Yea, I mean the SR3 and Aaton XTR Prod are the two cameras. People will suggest others, but those are the two I would suggest and funny enough, the two I own. They both have their own little issues, neither is perfect, but I think either one could be bought and used for years if maintained properly. I wouldn't for instance buy on ebay unless your buying from a reputable vendor who has re-built the camera, especially the SR because it's far more complicated then the XTR in my opinion. I personally prefer the XTR because I think the way they designed the camera leads to less wear and tear on the mechanics, it's much softer on the film, has excellent registration AND is a better hand-holding camera. The Prod has the 35mm viewfinder and usually a better video tap, but every camera is different. It'a also quieter then the SR3, which is a benefit. The SR3 is a 24v system, so it's incompatible with standard 12v power sources. It also doesn't hand hold very well as the camera is flat instead of curved for the shoulder of the camera operator. Outside of those two issues, it's a really nice camera with a beautiful viewfinder and a very professional feeling when using. The XTR feels like someone made it by hand, but the SR3 feels mass produced. If you're waiting a year to buy a camera, it must be said prices are going up. What happened between 2013 and 2016 is that most rental houses got rid of their cameras at a time when Kodak was looking iffy financially. So the market was flooded with ex-rental cameras and they were going for cheap. I saw full XTR Prod packages go for $2500 bux at one time and an SR3 sold for $1800 in 2015. However, once Kodak stabilized and once that gluttony of rental cameras were gobbled up by people like me, the prices have started to go back up again. So far in 2017, there have been very few decent camera packages for sale and those that have been, are going for 25% more then they were in 2016. Remember, there are no new cameras, so once all these rental house cameras are gone, there simply won't be any more cameras available unless an owner/operator like myself, chooses to sell one of their packages, which is... to say the least, probably not happening very much. So if you wait until 2018 to buy something, you may find the only cameras available are very expensive, like $5 - 8k. I lucked out on the last three cameras I bought, they were all amazing deals from private owners who needed cash, all done on a personal level. If you don't know anyone, it will be hard to get a deal like that, you're relying on retail establishments like Visual Products, who are great, but charge a lot for their excellent work.

That's called lightening in a bottle. It happens, I've seen it happen personally. However, I'm certain there is a lot more to the story then simply a random bloke submitting a short and making millions. Everyone I know who made the transition, spent a crazy amount of money on their short and doing everything a feature film would do, like hiring festival and even sales agents to make sure it wasn't a waste of time. Most people who make short films, can't afford those things, hence the reason they're making shorts. Ohh and your comment about needing to live in Los Angeles. For every 1 lightening in a bottle that happens each year, there are 1000 people moving up the food chain here in L.A. So sure, you can waste your parents retirement fund on making a movie and going to festivals, to perhaps get lightening in a bottle... or you can move to one of the 'industry cities' and make product all day, every day, until your good enough to warrant spending money. Again, if you have money and you can fine tune your craft, it doesn't matter where you live. Most people simply can't afford to have a full-time job outside of the industry AND fine tune their craft. This is why people move to industry cities in order to get work that relates to their passion.

Well, google/youtube advertisers are nobodies main income stream. When you do the math, the numbers you need to make money off standard youtube advertising are insane. Sure, the top 15 youtubers can make a few grand a month, but the rest of us saps can't. So the whole idea of some big companies pulling advertising from youtube, doesn't phase me or anyone else I know. The vast majority of money to be made on youtube is through product placement and in-video advertising. The numbers are quite staggering when you start doing them. You can make upwards of a few grand per video, if you only have 100k hits. Of course, you have to pre-plan everything and have an agent who helps put the deals together, but if you're a professional youtuber, it's all doable. I'm actually starting a youtube business very soon, I'll be launching in September if everything goes well. I've learned A LOT about youtube and how it works since I started this venture and there is a lot of money to be had, IF you make the right content.

Where I appreciate the apologies, it doesn't matter how much people apologize, this keeps happening over and over again. The thread is gone and so is all the work I put into it. I only wrote this thread because I told my lens technician friend I wanted to write something about the Xeen's and how they compare to other lenses. I took four hours out of my day and he took two billable hours out of his, so we could work together and do the test I published here. So there is a lot more going on behind the scenes and even though the data may not be technical, it's not suppose to be written that way. If I wanted to write something technical, I would have had my friend write it for me. Most people can't interpret technical information anyway, they simply want a few factoids and that's it. Just easy to digest personal experiences, which is what I posted. Otherwise, it's just a technical document or a product review. Anyway, I'm disheartened my work went to waste, yet again. I'm just tired of taking time out of my life to share my experiences when all it does is lead to this mess time and time again. I will try again someday, but not for a while.

Ackroyd is known for mixing formats so perhaps it's a mix bag. Some for sure is too crisp for film...

You have showed on countless times, you have zero interest in educating anyone. You don't want to help anyone, you just come on here to "correct" what you feel others have said wrong. I look at ALL of your postings and they're pretty much all the same. Again, I have a hand full of professional bench technicians here, who I'm friends with, who I learn from. I know what a lens collimator does, it's designed to measure back focus. However, the lens technician I work with, showed me a few other things a collimator is good for like being able to tell how crisp a lens is at X given stop. Sure, you'd normally use a lens projector for that test, but he showed me how a collimator can be used for similar testing. Maybe he doesn't know what he's talking about, but his explanation was pretty rock solid. When ANYONE posts something, to be badgered in the first reply... is uncalled for. All you had to say was; "in my experience, XYZ is different". You didn't have to beat me on the head. Also, generally speaking, people who make new threads, want an engaging conversation not a badgering/belittlement session. Dom, you also make a lot of mistakes and correct yourself constantly. I see it, I read your posts, I see the mistakes being fixed. We're just human mate and just because I teach people the creative side of filmmaking, doesn't mean I need to explain to them how a collimator works and why it's an important tool. P.S. When you become a "creative" and you start renting and owning equipment, then maybe you'd understand the discrepancies between a manufacturers spec and what us, the cinematographers actually use. I'm in no position to dismantle the products I use in order to determine if there is anything wrong. I just use them and if they don't work up to my expectations, then I will comment about my experiences.

First off, everyone on this forum says wrong information all the time. It's just, it's generally so grievous in error, people just laugh and move on. Even Dom has been completely wrong about many things, but I've simply corrected him and not been a jerk about it. Since this is a professional forum, the way to correct someone is to simply state in their own opinion, a certain circumstance is different. There is no reason to badger, there is no reason to CONSTANTLY bring up the past. Why are you putting words in my mouth without linking to the original source so we can find out why I would say something like that? I am from Boston, I went to Emerson, I work with fellow Emersonians all the time at my film school. I actually just wrapped up a rental of my XTR with one of them last week. He's a senior at the California campus and maybe I was referring to that, instead of Boston. I bet if you re-read, there will be context.

There is nothing embarrassing in my original post. I deleted it because I knew the thread would go south just like it has and I didn't want people sifting through the bullshit of you guys arguing with me about my own personal experiences with products that again, maybe heavily modified compared to stock.

Ohh and P.S. whoever is giving me negatives all the time, grow up. If you don't like something someone says, be an adult and post your reasoning.

I'd submit to everything you can afford, why not? If you've got a bitchin' short, you may get in to a few of them. But remember, submission costs are expensive, sometimes a few hundred dollars. Plus most of the big festivals require a hard copy of your movie, not just a link. So that adds to the expense of buying flash storage and shipping it out, just to be rejected. Outside of little home projects made for fun, most larger productions hire a festival staff that take care of the business side. Those people know people who work at each festival, so they get in automatically, even if they aren't that good. These "festival agents" are a critical part of running the festival circuit these days, even the smaller shows have them. We had a great one in Europe for 'A Fuller Life' and we got into most of the festivals we submitted to, but it cost us a few grand. We submitted to some of the US festivals, but we couldn't afford an agent for both Europe and the US. Some content doesn't play well here, so Europe is absolutely a place to look as well.

I'm all good Dom, I've got a great group of top experts here in L.A, who don't beat me on the head with a mallet if I say something wrong. If I misinterpreted what they said, that's my fault and again I'm not a bench technician, nor have I ever stated such. Yes, I service my own cameras, but that's out of necessity. Plus, why would I listen to someone who only badgers others about their own experiences. I'm very lucky because I get to use a wide range of products on a regular basis and get to share my own personal experiences with them. Sure, my experiences differ from the "norm" because I'm not the same person you are and maybe the products I use are heavily modified, I don't know. What I do know is how they function on set, that's truthfully the only thing that makes any difference. Anyway, I guess nobody gets to hear my experience with these different lenses. It's a real shame because I think people who were thinking about spending money on glass, could have learned something. I also think we could have had a nice chat about it when the footage comes back because who else would shoot with Xeen's and 35mm film cameras? I guess I'll just share my experiences with another group of people who understand that what I say is just my own opinion based on experience using the products. There is nothing WRONG with someone's opinion, there is only accepting it and moving on. Thanks for ruining another thread. Clearly posting personal experiences and opinions isn't a possibility here.

Please delete thread.

Just watched all 3, I really enjoyed them. Now I came in understanding how this all worked, but I can see how someone who didn't understand, would be very confused. I teach high school and college level filmmaking classes, I also produce quite a bit of educational content. One thing I've learned is that you've gotta play to both: the people who are coming in without any knowledge and the people who are coming in with a lot. This is very easy to do with a different type of simpler graphic that is less text based and more picture based. For instance, showing a picture of a lens, imager, integrated circuit and final output, with grey scale on both sides, to show people what the difference is between reality and how the electronics interpret the image. Also explaining how ISO works with digital cameras is also critical. You touched on it at the very tail of video 3, but it wasn't enough. You never flat-out said that digital cameras don't have a real ISO, that it's all how the data is interpreted. That is the kind of stuff that people really need to hear and understand. In the end, I think it's a good beginning and for a technical person who may be unfamiliar with digital cameras, it will work. It's just, most technical people aren't watching youtube, they read books. :)

Yea, I've been watching A LOT of youtubers recently and very few people have any actual hands-on experience with anything they discuss. Heck, I've seen reviews of products where the reviewers themselves, don't even partake in the activity the product is being used for! I'm actually in the process of making a kickass youtube series about filmmaking on motion picture film. Just sent the first batch of film to the lab yesterday! Ohh and yes, it's all shot on S16 and 35mm. :)

Here is my response that I posted on vimeo: Great video! As someone who runs a film school and shoots on film constantly, I just wanted to respond to some errors in your numbers. First thing first, camera rental houses charge a 3 day week for rental, it's not $1500/day is $4500/week. Second thing and this is critical, the digital cameras you mentioned are all 4k or higher resolution and equivalent so S35 frame size which is an entirely different world then Super 16. Third, Super 16mm glass is practically free to rent compared to S35mm glass. In fact, due to the lens barrel size of S35mm glass, they won't even fit on an SR3. So for an SR3 rental, you're using S16mm glass, which is A LOT cheaper to rent. For instance, I rent Aaton XTR S16 packages for $250/day including glass. This is on the low side admittedly, but there are plenty of rental houses who will work super deals on S16 cameras and lenses. Finally, the most critical thing that's not mentioned is post production cost. Film inherently costs less money to color because it already looks good coming off the scanner. So right away you have massive savings on post production compared to shooting digitally. Plus, no need for a DIT/hard drives/grading monitors on set, which are a time consuming and expensive thing that slows production down. Having run these numbers dozens of times on more projects then I can remember, Super 16 shooting cost is about equivalent to shooting with a Red Dragon (4k mode), assuming you OWN the Super 16 cameras and lenses. The moment you start renting cameras and lenses, the Dragon becomes a cheaper package in the long run. This is why so many people don't contemplate film, because IT IS CHEAPER to shoot GOOD digital. The Dragon is the cheapest decent cinema camera to rent today, they're everywhere and they look great when paired with very basic inexpensive cinema primes like CP2's and Rokinon Xeen's. Here is one thing that will break your brain though. With the increased use of 35mm on productions, short-ends for 35mm have dropped in price substantially. Kodak charges .34/ft for 16mm stock new, but 35mm short ends from Reel Good film here in Hollywood are .17/ft. Yes... that number is right, 35mm is half the price of 16mm. Mind you, with 3 perf 35mm cameras, a 400ft load is half the runtime of 16mm (6 minutes). However, it's half the price, so stock v time equates to the same number. The only "additional" cost is processing and transfer, which most houses will work a killer deal for. In the end, the benefits of film are in it's esthetic and differentiating it from the modern world of digital cinematography which is bland in a lot of ways. Digital is still cheaper on every level then film, unless you rent the very highest end cameras and have multiple people on set dealing with the workflow. I'm a one man band and I'm honest, digital is a lot easier to deal with, but it doesn't have the look of film by any stretch. People stand up and notice something that's shot on film, they may not if it's just "another" digital production.

The bigger festivals, the schedule is so whack, it's hard for people to even see the shorts. If you're a buyer or producer, why would you even waste your time seeing them, when you can see something that actually matters? Smaller festivals are where things truly get recognized, but no way will anyone worthwhile be watching. I'm jaded about festivals because part of me says they're cool and I'd do more in the future, but part of me says they're a waste of time. A lot of the stuff I've worked on has gone to festivals, 'A Fuller Life' has gone to two dozen, some of the biggest like Venice and Berlin. It's not a great movie or anything, but we didn't achieve very much with the festival run of any movie I've been apart of.

As Adam says, 99% of the time they do nothing. If your short is good enough to win awards, then there is some recognition if you're at the big festivals. However, taking that and leading to a feature film career or even money, is a stretch. Plus, you've gotta be at the festivals which is costly in of itself. Honestly, you'll get more recognition on youtube if you click bait the title and spend the money on marketing. Here is the big disconnect that people don't quite get; If you're doing shorts, you're not making features. So when it comes time to make a feature, people will look at you and say... why should we hire this guy (or give money to his cause) if he hasn't made a feature yet. Same goes for writing, same goes for editing or cinematography... it's a catch 22. If you wanna move up the ladder, you actually have to make your own ladder to move up with. So if you wanna make features, you gotta write a damn good script and make it yourself. Which is, lets just say... a 3 - 5 year commitment and a lot of money. The only thing that separates you from the bloke next to you, is the fact he made a feature and you haven't. You don't have to be any good, you just gotta PROVE you can do the work.

Well, first thing is that SR's are 24v systems, not 12v systems. IDK how they'd react to 12v, never tried. Second, if you supply a good/measured 24v signal to the camera and it still doesn't work, check the fuse. It's on the flat piece where the magazine goes (the electronics). It's the little circular port, sometimes plastic see-through. Measure the fuse to make sure it's in good working order.

Odd one, maybe it's the connector on the camera side.

I like to light the entire room and then make slight adjustments for different angles. By the end of the scene, the setup generally looks entirely different then the first shot. This is generally because I do Wide/Medium/CU in my shooting style, which I think is pretty much the norm. For those Wide's and Medium's, you can generally get away with minor tweaks. It's the CU's which require bigger changes sometimes.

If water lands on the film before exposure, it's a problem. If it lands on the film after exposure, it's LESS of a problem. When processing, the film is wet for the entire process until the drying rack. When film gets wet and then is allowed to dry, that's when you get spotting on the film. If it's just a few frames, it's no big deal. I doubt water got into the super 8 cartridge enough to make it a problem. I've always been told, if a magazine goes for a bath, to keep it in water until it's at the lab.