Tyler Purcell

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.

Swap as in borrow or swap as in keep? I'd be more then happy to let someone borrow my EBM anytime. Now that I have 2 higher end S16 cameras, the EBM I'm afraid won't get as much use as it did prior. Love the camera, wanna keep it, but if you need a Bolex for a while, maybe we can work something out!

I have a good source who told me all the S8 and reversal will be processed in Rochester.

Google search "resetting FCPX" you've got a corrupt cache file structure. Easy fix, don't know where it is on your version though, apple moved it around on the different versions. It's one folder to trash and it will reset it. 10 second fix, plenty of video's about it online.

Absolutely! I keep saying this to people, but film really makes your movie look like... well a movie! :D

Can you post a show reel? I'd love to see some of those scenes in motion. :)

Nice! Congrats on your 5th feature! :D

IDK how a on-set sound guy knows anything about post production audio syncing? They're two completely different roles.

Stuff looks good, it does need a good DI, it's very contrasty right now which makes it look more noisy then I think it really is. But if that's the look your after, go for it.

Act fast... got around 20 people knocking on my door in the first hour! LOL :P If you pass, I can get you something similar for more money. HA! :D

SOLD!!! It took 2 hours! LOL :)

Pluraleyes is automatic tho... a reference track on camera means you sync instantly.

True, but there is a lot of equipment that needs to be purchased to make that TC system work. I was told the TC is worthless these days as modern scanners don't read the code. More then one lab said don't bother with a TC camera as a consequence.

Well I mean physical audio on the files recorded by the camera. Can't really do that with film anymore, now that mag striping isn't around anymore. Honestly, IDK why nobody designed a laser that can flash digital audio onto the film negative. Even if it was 1 reference track, it would be pretty darn cool.