Tyler Purcell

I always ask the same questions when people are spending potentially ten's of thousands on camera equipment... Do you have a way to make the money back in your first two years of ownership? Why do you need the best of the best? Why not settle for something a lot cheaper? The camera body and RED accessories are only a very small portion of the over-all cost. Tripod (support), follow focus, mattebox, media, monitoring and lenses are very expensive. Buying a high-end camera body and accessories, doesn't mean you can magically make great images. It also doesn't magically give you a job as EVERYONE has a 4k cinema camera somewhere. So you don't magically have an upper hand when bidding on potential jobs, you're just "another" RED owner. For your own personal stuff, doesn't a $20,000 camera package and $40,000 worth of accessories and lenses, sound like quite a bit of money? I spent $3k for a kit that doesn't "look" much worse when streaming online, which is what everyone does now a days anyway. If you aren't a professional cameraman traveling the world, shooting for other people, there really is no point to owning such high-end equipment in my opinion. There are so many incredible low-cost cameras on the market today and frankly, RED cine is the last place I'd head to with the kind of competition available. So think about these things before making a decision. It's of course your own financial decision, but I've seen people get burnt on high-stake loans for equipment, it can get very expensive for no reason. Fun toy yes, but worth it? Up to you.

A good portion of the labs that process 16 will print 16. You've just gotta call around. I'd recommend Cine Lab too of course, but they're not exactly around the corner from your location.

I use ethernet, firewire, USB 3, HDMI/DVI and Thunderbolt constantly. Plus, people have tripped over my power cable literally hundreds of times working on sets and my laptop has never been damaged. Now without a magsafe adaptor, we're back to the stone age with that whole issue. Maybe Apple will think of a clever solution built-in to their actual adaptors cable, but I haven't seen anything. Thunderbolt has allowed you to do this since it's invention. It's a direct PCI bus device.

Yea, but desktops really suck for portable situations. Most people need laptops to download cards and do some basic color correction on set to insure things look good. At home, I think most of us use high-power desktops, I know I do. It's also about integration, mac's are still better at working with video. Now that mac's are just intel computers, it's very easy to build up a very nice PC and run Mac OS on it, most of my friends do that and have the best of both worlds. An operating system that actually works without any tinkering and super powerful, low cost hardware. I use a 8 year old mac pro tower and it's no slower then any new fancy PC I've used.

Yea exactly, it's kinda confusing. Thanks for posting that thou, good to know.

Supposedly there is a plugin for windows to deal with HFS+, but mac's are switching formatting yet again, so don't hold your breath. The new style of formatting is pretty clever and has a lot of potential for SSD's, but it's a non-starter for windows. There was a recent test of the new Macbook's vs current PC models of higher spec and similar price. The Macbook blew the PC's out of the water on identical tests. This is the kind of thing that makes you think for a second about windows media integration vs mac's. Apple has done a great job with it and Windows has fell behind substantially. Then you think the entire industry is quicktime based and windows is no longer supported. Right there, it's the nail in the coffin for windows and Apple knows it. They want to separate themselves and they're doing a good job at that unfortunately. I actually prefer windows to have the same tools as mac so people use the best tools on the market. Now its looking more like the great divide where each system is going to offer entirely different solutions to the same problem, which sucks.

Where it's true, the actual magnetic data on the platters doesn't change. The mechanics of the drive do fail and fail often. I've been in the computer industry for a very long time and the amount of "archive" drives which have crossed my desk, would make you never want to use a hard drive. I've seen entire raid arrays go bad AT THE SAME TIME because the drives were made around the same time and they all went bad at the same time. Drives in a raid array, running 24/7 generally run 3 - 5 years without an issue. You can actually BANK on more then 3 years, but much after and they start to fail. The first thing that happen is very basic data corruption of the directory block, which makes the drive slowly stop working. A bad directory block drive will go bad very quickly, usually a few months and it will be toast. Yes you can send the drive for data recovery, but sometimes it's very expensive. I use to specialize in data recovery and it's very time consuming. Files come off corrupt and need substantial code variations to work again. I actually co-designed a program back in the Mac OS 9 days, which fixed these issues, but that was in the 90's. Drives that sit on shelves, fail because the motor bearings cease and the motor can't spin. This blows up the main board on the drive and that's it, drive is toast. Outside of customers brining in drives with this very problem (we call it stiction), I've personally seen this happen on drives over 7 years of age. This is a much harder thing to deal with because without mechanics that spin the disks and without a main circuit board that works, you're kinda screwed. Even the top data recovery places, struggle to get data off drives like that, though most of the time, it's doable for a hefty fee. Today drives are made cheaper and cheaper, entirely by machines and the test cycles are generally only 24hrs. They map bad blocks and ship them. Also, since data density has increased, a single platter can now contain 2TB, which is quite amazing. This will lead to more serious tracking issues up the road and those higher density drives will most likely last a shorter MTBF. Everything is also switching over to SSD, which is a non-starter for the data recovery business. Unlike spinning disks, SSD's are small raid arrays with a bunch of memory which is raided together as raid 0. If one of those memory chips has a small hiccup, you permanently loose all data. SSD's have huge problems with rapid read and write processes like swap files which are used by the system as memory. SSD's can't erase the old files fast enough, as hard drives simply "forget" the location of data, writing over the same spot with new data, SSD's have to actually write zero's over old data before they can write new data. So sure, SSD's are fast, but when they get full, they get super slow and if you fill them to capacity, they will stop working entirely. Now everyone has different experiences and not every drive is considered the same. I have drives that are 15 years old that still work fine, made in a time period where platter density was around 10gb and testing/block mapping took place over weeks, not hours. I personally go through a set of raid drives every 3 - 5 years. Once one fails, the others fail soon after and luckily I have everything backed up, but how many drives does one need? I shoot HD 1080p Pro Res 220 personally, so I don't need a lot of storage. I have 5, 2TB 2.5" portable USB drives in my safe and that's my backup of raw material. Finals are spread across three other drives, one back in Boston that bring with me every year and store in my parents safe. Yet, any one of those drives could go bad at any minute and I'd be out the data. The only solution is to backup on multiple drives, store them in different sealed locations and run them on a regular basis to insure the platters don't stick. Then it's down to luck... which is a huge problem. Film? Well... I run an archive that's from the 70's and it's been stored on the top shelf of a garage, in the SO Cal sun since it was originally shot and all of it's good. Colors are perfect, no warping or sticking either. So roughly 40 years sitting in the baking So Cal sun and it's fine. Yes, it's mostly Kodak color reversal of one kind or another, which from my experience, seems to retain colors over a longer period of time then negative. Still at the rate technology is moving forward, we will not be able to use storage mediums from today 40 years from now. None of what we have today, computers, telephones, hard drives, SSD's, none of it will be workable 40 years from now. Yet, all of the film you have will be just as relevant in 40 years as it is today. If dooms day happens and almost the entire population is wiped off this earth. There will be some underground storage facility full of film and you can still watch it by holding it up to some light and sliding it through your fingers. After our civilization is long gone, it will survive as a permanent record, not some in-between technology like modern computers use.

Have you measured the socket with a multimeter? On some projectors, the exciter lamp is turned on when the volume knob is turned up. Bell and Howell is infamous for that issue.

Yep super nice doc, paid for by the big phone companies, so they can afford to give it away. They don't really need to make their money back like most filmmakers. It's nice to see a lot of natural light and single light sources. Two camera shooting, one lens close off axis, one lens wider on axis. If you have a stopwatch, you will notice the B-Roll material had 3 - 5 second cuts, though they dwelled on the interviews a bit longer then I would have. Looking at the type of B-roll material they had and the simplicity of the story, I bet they just didn't have much to cut to. I think it would be hard for a youth audience to get into this piece and watch the entire thing, but I personally think the pacing was good all the way around, mostly because the mood is so somber. It's a great example of a scripted, multi-cam documentary. "Scripted" because it was clearly researched very well and if you pay close attention to the interviews, they were done in a short period of time, as the sun/shadows never change. This is because the filmmakers walked in, knowing exactly what they needed to get. The b-roll choices also show a great understanding of the story. Everything was heavily pre-planned, from the police officers interviews at the scene of the accident, to acquiring the pictures of the accident itself. These show how well thought out the process was and again, a great example of scripted documentary.

You'll have to explain the reasoning behind the necessity for this conversion. Photoshop does it during import if you need it done, but it doesn't do anything outside of photoshop. It's not like converting the image will allow you to match it to a piece of video or something.

I shouldn't need to do anything. You are the one who bullied me, not the other way around. This is not a child's playground and as an industry professional, it is wrong for you to bully my opinion.

Got ya, good so I'm not crazy! I'll own one very soon, got one being donated to my school, looking forward to playing with it. :) Thanks again for the info!

I'm very humble in person in reality, not so humble when I'm attacked by someone who doesn't even know me. What humors me the most is that you haven't given a single opinion on this matter, outside of ridiculed mine. I will always be a better man then you sir, at least I try to help.

I just noticed the ground glass was more square then normal. So I pulled the gate out and marked a piece of film and was shocked to see it had full height, but still protected the soundtrack area. I didn't notice any markings that mentioned academy however. I probably should have measured it. Does that make any sense?

Yes, I apologize for my grievous error. I was referencing the II itself, rather then 1950's model that came later. I got the years mixed up, I was going off memory and was off by 10 years. I also thought the Academy camera gates (full height) were taller then the Academy projection gates. This way cameras COULD use 2X anamorphic lenses without a problem. I thought that was just common knowledge as all the gates I've seen are full height, but protect the side for the soundtrack area.

There are plenty of places in the world that have huge film support, one of them is in the US. 35mm projection won't come back for mass distribution. It's a dead format for the masses unfortunately. 15/70 IMAX is right behind it, dying an agonizing death as it's somehow beaten by 4k digital cinema technology, that's 1/10th the quality. Nobody cares anymore because the studios make so much money with digital, they will never make a change. With that said, there are still plenty of films being shot on 16, 35 and 65, it's just a matter of living places where you can see prints of them projected. It happens, but kinda rarely.

Man, I've used C stand arms for all sorts of things, but I've never bent an arm. This picture is from a film I did 15 years ago. There was no way to hang lights, so we made a C stand bridge that went up the sides of the walls and over the top. It was a nifty idea my gaffer and I had at the 11th hour. We hung 1 Arri 1k's from it. :)

Honestly, I think they mostly have academy apertures. Remember, that camera came out AFTER the industry had switched over to academy. All of the 2C's I've seen are all Academy, which is totally fine for 2x anamorphic. You'd have to go back to WWII vintage model 2B's to find full gate cameras. If you wish to shoot anamorphic, the problems you'll have really come down to the lenses. Good one's without fungus and any decent quality, are very expensive to buy 2x that of a 2C camera body. Rental houses also don't discount anamorphic lenses like they do spherical. Plus, it's really rare to find a solid PL mount 2C for sale at any decent price. Most of the modded 2C's go for twice the price of an original un-modded one. This is because your lensing options increase dramatically with PL mount. Far better to find an Arri III or 435, which are kind of the work horses for the B unit. Both have hard PL mounts of course and can be found at similar pricing as updated 2C's, if you wait long enough.

Interesting stuff, thanks for the write-up David! :)

Let me try to answer with quick sentences... I got 20 minutes. GO! I was always interested in photography as a child and based my entire post high school education on cinematography. Here are my top 3. - Understands how important prep is with the director, to insure on-set things go smoothly. - Good listener, capable of accepting critique and working with the crew to solve problems without an ego. - Always looking for that "great shot" and not scared to bring it up to the director. For personal use, the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera, no doubt the best sub $1000 camera made. For commercial use, the Arri Alexa. Every time I work with the camera, I'm overly happy with the results. It's the only professional cinema camera I've worked with that doesn't piss me off on set and/or gives me headaches in post. For S16mm, Aaton LTR/XTR for sure. Lightest, quietest super 16 camera made, absolutely my favorite. For S35mm, I'm at a cross roads between the Arri 235 and Aaton Penelope. Both are simply outstanding light-weight cameras, both have their advantages and disadvantages. The 235 is less expensive to own and easier to find used/rental, but it's loud. The Penelope is harder to find, much more expensive to own, but deathly silent. Frankly, if I had the money, I'd own both. Spherical primes it's all about the classic Arri/Zeiss MKII superspeed primes. They have a very nice soft look AND I love the warmth of the coatings. Plus, they're radially available for purchase without breaking the bank. I don't really have a favorite zoom, they all have issues and it's about figuring out what works for your particular production. I love my 12 - 120 MKI Zeiss zoom, but it's really a limited market product today. There is no difference from my understanding. David can probably explain why the industry has two names for the same job. I hate to sound modernist, but Roger Deakins and Darius Khondji were the two guys I idolized as a teenager. Maybe because arguably some of their best work came out whilst I was in school, so it had the most impact on me. If you want to be a "filmmaker" then you need to learn all the jobs. If you want to be a "cinematographer" you need to focus on shooting. They are two completely different professions. If you really want to be a professional cinematographer, you first need to understand that it's a business. So taking some classes on running your own business, is a wise idea. Remembering always that cinematographers don't have full-time jobs and unless your in the union, you won't have any benefits. So understanding the financial/business aspects is critical. I think having a backup skill is also critical. When I've been out of work in the creative field, I've fallen back on my technical/engineering skills to keep money flowing. I suggest NOT doing other creative positions IF your goal is to be a professional cinematographer. Focus is everything, make a game plan for the next 5 years and stick to it. This includes potentially, finding a mentor to help groom you. Maybe buying a small/inexpensive camera package so you can go out and experiment with different things. Also pushing yourself to achieve goals in a certain amount of time, will help you grow because in reality, a good successful cinematographer needs to hustle on and off set. Finally and I can't stress this enough, you need to go where the work is. People may disagree with me on this point, but I can attest from experience how valuable it is to be in the heart of the action. Some may say it's better to be a big fish in a small pond and that's correct. But you can't become a big fish unless you have a lot of experience. To gain that experience, you need to work your way up through the typical channels. You need to work for peanuts, make mistakes and already have 3 more gigs booked. This requires you to be in one of the big cities for media; Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, Atlanta, etc. There are other places that have work as well, but those four are the "big" four in the US currently. You land in one of those places, you can get onto a show as a P.A. almost right away. Start making connections as a P.A., pay your bills with that money and in between P.A. gigs, shoot projects for all the "director" friends you'll make in the P.A. pit. If you have a good camera, you will have plenty of opportunity to work, all be it, probably for free. Those connections will lead you to pay jobs and eventually more consistent work. There are other routes like working in a rental house, but no matter what, who you know, gets you the work. I could go on all day, but my 20 minutes are over!

Yet another dis, you're on a roll. I'll say this much, real masters are the most humble and open people. They understand the validity of other people's ideas and instead of mocking, they embrace and encourage. Varied experiences outside a singular realm of expertise, opens your mind and pushes your abilities to much greater levels. We live in a new and exciting world, where jacks of all trades are talking over from the more professional, single skilled, career-minded individuals. I'm very much happy to be on that boat and constantly challenging myself to new and interesting positions on varying shows.

If you only look at film with the idea of getting a film look, then you're really missing the power of the format. To me archiving/long term preservation and film's ability to be resolution agnostic, are more critical, even if highly "technical" aspects that people forget about. The one thing digital can't do is breathe. Even fancy computer algorithms, muck up the most critical element of film; no two frames are the same. Film breaths, it has a life to it even if there is nothing happening on camera. Film stock is inherently imperfect, the cameras and projection systems also add a bit of imperfection. Even a dirt less, grainless piece 15/70 IMAX, still breathes life into solid images. The best example of this is one of my favorite IMAX films "Rocky Mountain Express". It's one of the last movies shot entirely in 15/70 and finished photochemically. They have non-moving shots of steam engines at rest, not moving at all, yet there is so much life in them thanks to the perfectly registered, yet still moving image. It doesn't matter how many tricks you add in post production, digital is incapable of delivering the same image as film. People have tried, they've experimented and honestly, many are moving back to film production. This year alone, we have seen dozens of movies originated on film, both S16 and 35. Next year alone, we have TWO huge movies being shot and distributed on 70mm. Big hollywood movies, big stars, on the big screen, using a 100+ year old technology to capture their images. Filmmakers have learned their lesson with digital; it's amazing low-light capability, simpler workflow and high resolution without the cost of large format negative. Yet, it still doesn't matter unless our youth are shooting on film, unless THEY see the necessity. This is why I started my educational foundation and why I teach an all-analog filmmaking class that ALL seniors in the filmmaking program MUST take. The lessons they learn with film will hopefully open a doorway to continue shooting in the future as they become professionals. To me, equipment isn't as important because it exists! There are literally thousands of sync sound 16mm cameras around and tens of thousands MOS cameras. Cheap cameras are not a problem, but education is, understanding film and not being intimidated by it, is absolutely the key.

Was it just a Gilbert Taylor look or was there a technical reason for using the filters?

It's true the K3 is old, but so is film. I mean, all you need is a movement and lens mount. ;)

Well, lets face it, you can make anything you want if you've got funding. Most people have to go out and seek funding, which means the final product must recoup at least the initial amount. A cinephile art fanatic, can find meaning in anything. If someone dumped a bucket of paint onto a canvas, that's considered 'art' with meaning. When someone tries to tell a cohesive story, that a general audience will understand, that's NOT considered 'art' because it's too "normal". It's far easier to dump a bucket of paint on a canvas, then it is to learn how to paint, find a great subject and paint a masterpiece that everyone will enjoy. Look at the great works of some of the best painters in the world, they are flat-out amazing pieces that a general audience will recognize and most can appreciate. I'm far more in awe of filmmakers who tell a cohesive story for the masses. It's FAR more difficult to get someone who has zero interest in a particular subject, to enjoy a product they didn't expect to enjoy. In my book, in my opinion, tell a compelling entertaining story first. I was asked for advice on an internet forum, which is a place for people to post their opinions. My opinion is based on 25 years experience, which means it probably has some level of accuracy. Unfortunately, there is a universal formula to making pretty much everything. If you follow the formula, you will get the product most people expect. If you bake a cake and leave out the rising agent, you don't get fluffy cake, you get flat brownies. Both are plenty enjoyable, but its no different with filmmaking. If you skirt around the universal definition of what you're trying to make, then people who go expecting cake, may get brownies. What if you go to make a cake and don't cook it enough, you get some sort of chocolate soup of nastiness. That's where the "artist" may go, lets take some crackers and make this a dip. YEY, that's very creative, but who is going to go through all that fuss, when all they want is cake in the first place? An art fanatic may, but regular people won't. They'll just throw it away and start over again, this time following the instructions perfectly to insure they get what they want. And there lies the issue... universally we expect cake when we go to make cake. Same goes for the cinema, we as the audience, expect to things and when they don't happen, we are disappointed. This leads to bad reviews, this leads to the market not "accepting" of your product and YOU not able to recoup your bottom dollar. Again, you can make anything you want... cake can be brownies in your book, but there is absolutely a universal standard for producing visual content that is acceptable to the masses, whether people want to admit it or not. Potential means nothing if nobody is going to see your finished product.