Tyler Purcell

The URSA 4.6k is FAR easier to use then the Canon C100, which is a garbled mess. You may find yourself re-thinking your entire strategy on how you use the camera due to it's ease of use. Having shot with the C100 and C300MKII, I can attest to how horrible the menu's and controls are. The URSA's exposure tools are also MUCH BETTER and easier to use then the C100. There really isn't any comparison between the two cameras either. The C100 is an 8 bit 4:2:0 MPEG 2 camera, the URSA Mini 4.6k is a 14 bit RAW camera that can also shoot 12 bit 4:4:4 Pro Res XQ as well. The big problem with the URSA's in general is their lack of an Optical Low Pass filter. This is a HUGE PROBLEM, but there are solutions. Running any filtration in front of the lens helps considerably. Softer cinema glass will also help with the issue. Google search moire issues and you'll see what I'm talking about. Truthfully, I'm a pretty big fan of the URSA 4.6k, the only reason I don't own one is the OLPF issue, but I've been playing with it for a while now and I think it's a great camera. It captures colors the way I like to grade in the coloring bay. Mind you, the C100 does as well, I think the C100 has a good looking imager. It's just matched to a poor processor, which even prohibits capturing a decent signal externally. With the full kit (viewfinder, shoulder kit, V mount batteries) it makes a powerful weapon. It's biggest issues are the lack of direct menu controls without opening up the display. I'd also say it's a bit on the heavy side, which kinda sucks if you're shooting shoulder all day long. It also has a few configuration issues, timecode input rarely works, the XLR's on top is bogus, the power button being behind the display sucks as well. But meh... I'd rather have good menu's and a great looking image anyway.

The video from CES has the camera running, it sounded like a normal super 8 camera. Nothing crazy loud, but not sync-sound quiet.

That's because they use two different streaming technologies. The 1080p signal is .h264 at around 5Mbps and the UHD signal is .h265 at around 15Mbps. If you streamed 1080p @ 15Mbps, you'd be not complaining. I have dozens of 15Mbps rips from BluRay and you can't tell the difference from the original media. (BD is 35 - 50Mbps .h264) Also... right now it's in a "beta" phase. Once more people start using it, the quality will reduce. I remember when HBO did a special satellite HD Broadcast years ago, it looked awesome because it was 19Mbps! Long GOP MPEG2 stream and it was amazing. Now, we're lucky to get 1 - 5Mbps on satellite TV.

Depends on how far away you are from the screen. I mean, my screen is around 7 feet wide and I sit around 12 feet away. So yea in that case, it would be nice to have a higher resolution device. As a filmmaker who appreciates technology, I will absolutely invest in a 4k, laser-based, three chip DLP projector at some point. It's been my dream forever to have a decent home theater projector (I don't do monitors). For the vast majority of people who have 50 - 70 inch TV's, you'd have to sit 6 - 8 feet away for the resolution to matter.

I agree with peter, I'd just enjoy what you have. The CP16 is a real tank and honestly, having used them for years myself, I've come to really not like them. If you're going to invest in a sync sound camera, far better to get an Arri SR or Aaton LTR. They're far better cameras with much greater support available. Honestly, if you wanted an "upgrade" and don't care about sync sound, why not get a Bolex? I love my EBM, it has a far more steady pulldown mechanism and you can find Super 16 conversions online. It's quiet enough that with a barnie you could record sound if you really needed it. Plus the EBM is electric, so no more winding! yeay! The K3 is honestly one of the worst cameras I've ever owned. It's SUPER cool and retro, but it pails in comparison to the Bolex.

That will never happen though, the disk itself is "UHD" which is all the customer needs to know. I predict UHD at home will be the next big technology flatline, like 3D at home. In my opinion, there is no difference between 3D and 4k at home. They both have equal issues with bandwidth and special viewing devices, the masses simply won't adopt because there is no NEED. People bought HD TV's because they had no choice and currently, broadcasters aren't in a frenzy to upgrade. Have you tried to stream Netflix and Amazon video 4k content? I have 100Mbps service and neither one works without buffering quite a bit. So that means you need 150 - 200Mbps? The average speed in America is 25Mbps and even the average speed in the EU is only slightly more at 50Mbps. So we're A LONG WAY AWAY from having any real-time 4k internet streaming for the "masses". Sure that special UHD satellite network, things like that may expand at the cost of other networks looking like crap. Needless to say, the whole "disk" market is dying so fast it may not even survive 2017. So if you can't get UHD content on BluRay, if you can't get it via your standard television hookup, if you can't get it via internet without downloading the entire package first, umm... what's the point? 4k at home has always been a scam in my opinion, just a way for people to get excited about buying yet another flat screen TV. Just to keep the TV makers in business selling cheap crap that will start failing and/or looking bad in a few years. Has any of you seen these new 4k TVs? YUCK! I haven't seen a single one that looks good, YUCK! :(

Yea 3D at home was silly. People simply don't care about 3D and if you put the same 3D movies at the same theaters in 2D, they would have identical attendance. Eventually the industry, especially IMAX, will wake up and realize they don't NEED to spend the money to convert every 2D movie into 3D in order to make money. Prediction... the next big wave of technology to fail... 4k at home. ;)

UHD BluRay is a complete smoke screen. I have various sources telling me only a small percentage of the disks are made from 4k masters. As a consequence, I went to my local Best By and sure enough, some of the disks say right on the back in fine print something like "made from a 2k master". A bunch of the real techie nerds from the projectionist forum have UHD players and have made a list of what movies look like UHD and what movies don't. They then cross-referenced them against known data (theatrical release format and IMDB format) and found the "softer" looking movies were 2k master, whilst the crisper one's were all 4k. Basically, however the movie was released in theaters, is what format it was on the UHD BluRay. Currently only a small percentage of movies are theatrically released in 4k. A shocker to some is that current server technology, simply can't playback two streams of 4k simultaneously, so NON-IMAX 3D movies are ALWAYS 2k. Point being, UHD is kind of a joke right now. Until distributors step up their game, we're stuck in 2k land for a long, long, long time.

They really aren't... and one's and zero's on a LTO tape that combined to make a 4k file, is not future proofing either. We've had higher resolution masters for 100 years and higher resolution in cinema's for 50 - 80 years (5/70 and 15/70). It's just 4/35 was cheap and at around 2k worth of resolution on the screen at 4th generation, it was very acceptable. Once something becomes acceptable, there is no desire/need to make it better.

One of them was... Hacksaw Ridge. The other one's weren't. My complaint is that people still shoot with equipment that's lower resolution then 100 year old technology. My complaint is that the "digital" shows are generally finished at lower quality then the "film" shows, which are generally scanned in at 5 - 6k today. My complaint is that nobody cares about delivering in the highest quality possible, they only care about speed and expense on a multi-million dollar movie, where the cost to shoot and finish in 4k is less then 1% of the budget. I wholeheartedly agree that everything should be delivered in 4k today, 2k shouldn't even exist! Why MOST MOVIES are still delivering in 2k is beyond me. Well, you're so shocked this stuff happens, I bet even if I showed you a write-up in AC, you'd think its bogus. I sincerely hope my explanation of this has raised an eyebrow enough for you to research. Maybe next time your at a post house, ask around and see what people say. Again, all that matters is consumers see the movie in the best quality possible. 1080i television and 2k cinema's are NOT the best quality possible.

Re-read the numbers above, you will see I said "finished and released" which means the output from the color/finishing was x resolution. My argument is that MOST MOVIES are still FINISHED AND RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC IN 2K. That means THERE IS NO 4K OR GREATER RESOLUTION MASTER ANYWHERE ON THE PLANET. Also, if I cited all my sources, you'd still not believe it because I'm not going to record everyone's conversation I talk with. Defacto? Television is 480i, 720p and 1080i, those are the Television formats currently broadcasting in the US, with the exception of a few very scarce instances of UHD. Yes, Direct TV offers a UHD "streaming" service, where you pay per view. That service is more like internet streaming then it is "television". It's "random access" to content, rather then a channel you happen to fall onto with content already in progress, which is the definition of television. So far nobody has been able to deal with the bandwidth requirements of UHD television, which are 4x that of normal broadcasts. The current pipes are all too small to transmit 600+ channels + UHD content on some of them. This is why 480i still exists and why surfing through satellite, cable or terrestrial over the air frequencies, you can still find old SD broadcasts. There just isn't enough bandwidth for everyone to be in HD and absolutely not for UHD. This whole "future" of UHD in the home is NOT going to be television, it's going to be on-demand "web" content. This is because, a single pipe is used to stream a single stream, vs a huge pipe streaming 600+ channels at once, trying to stream some high bandwidth, some low bandwidth. Yes,.h265 is amazing and yes it's a complete game changer, but most TV's and set top boxes aren't designed to decode it at UHD resolutions. So currently, there are only three UHD content providers; Netflix/Amazon and direct TV's special service. Neither one of them have full-time UHD content even though they "claim" they do. You're absolutely right, UHD is the "future", but it's been around for 5 years now now and only a tiny myopic sector if the industry has adopted it. So why should content providers even contemplate spending the extra money to deliver in a format that hasn't been adopted in the last 5 years? Because they want to be future proof? If that were the case, they would have shot on film!

Content aggregators are the companies which QC, archive and deliver content to the various distribution channels. Everything goes through a content aggregator, from features to music videos. The content aggregator holds the "masters" and will deliver files to the various companies who request it, in the format they request it in. This is the way everyone works though. They request 4k or higher during production, but they down-res for delivery. Next time you work on one of those shows, I would be interested to actually get info on the file exported from the coloring/finishing bay. A lot of times, the down-res is done in the coloring/finishing bay because this allows more wiggle room for re-framing in post and cheaper VFX work. Since coloring/finishing is generally a rushed process on most shows, speed always trumps quality. It is true that VFX houses generally try to render in 4k, a lot of times they can't afford the time if they're being pushed schedule wise. That is 100% true. I can work in 2k and 4k in real time on my 2009 Mac Pro Tower. There is NO REASON for any movie to be finished and released in 2k. Well, the only thing that makes a difference is how the audience see's the movie. If nobody ever see's the 4k master, what's the point of making it? I have to guess this is the only reason we're still finishing movies in 2k. By the way, those numbers I quoted above are from actual sources, so you're allowed to be surprised. :)

Hard to find Aaron, I've been looking for quite a while and I had to buy a complete kit off ebay.

You mean cable television? I mean how do you know they are actually exporting the files in 4k and delivering them to the content aggregator in that format? La La Land was scanned at 6k on an arri scanner, finished and released in 4k Manchester by the sea was shot at 3.2k arri raw, finished and released in 2k Moonlight was shot (pro res capture), finished and released in 2k Arrival was shot 2.8k arri raw, finished and released in 2k Fences was scanned at 4k, but finished and released in 2k Hacksaw Ridge was shot at 3.2k arri raw, but finished in 4k and released in 2k (there will be a 4k UHD release of this movie, but theaters were all 2k) Hell or High Water was shot in 2.8k arri raw, finished and released in 2k Hidden Figures was scanned at 6k arri scanner, finished and released in 4k (same post house as La La Land) Lion was shot in 2.8k arri raw, finished and released in 2k Silence was scanned at 6k on an arri scanner, finished and released in 4k. Jackie was scanned at 3k, finished and released in 2k.

Actually, the only distributors who require 4k are Netflix and Amazon. Everything else is still 1080p, 2k and 4k aren't even options for delivery in a lot of cases. Even the little pit poop features I've been doing, we've tried to deliver in 4k and been rejected. You can be "pretty sure" all you want, but I have a pulse on the industry from the content owners, post production finishing, distributors, aggregates and presenters. Yes, 2016 had the greatest amount of 4k material in theaters, but it was still a very low percentile. The problem is, distributors aren't requiring content be delivered in 4k, so the production/post production companies aren't bothering. The storage cost to online 2k vs 4k is pretty high and as many people have pointed out, rendering 4k is very time consuming. This is why the industry is still fixated on 1080p and 2k for the time being. Don't forget, most theaters in the US are still 2k anyway.

'There will be blood' was snuffed by "no country for old men", which is a hard bargain. I love both movies, so it's hard to pick which one is better. I just feel the academy in that case, simply picks the filmmaker with the most previous nominations and goes with them for the "tie breaker" so to speak. 'The Master' is an art film, the academy would never give it best picture. It's too slow for American audiences and it's too politically charged. If it had magically done well in the box office, well maybe. But people don't go to see those kinds of movies because they're too dark. People go to the theater to see entertainment, most of which is stupid superhero fodder. Remember, 'La La Land' breaks the mold because it's a story about Hollywood and it's a musical. These are two things that are death traps for movies today, yet the movie is a success. The Oscars have always been an "entertainment" award, more then anything else.

Well, things are very different here in Hollywood then most other places on the planet. People who dream of being actors, they struggle big time because auditions generally happen mid-day and with a very random schedule. If you don't take auditions, you will never work as an actor. Furthermore, spending time at industry parties and hobnobbing with the elite, is also critical. So you can't necessarily work "nights", or you'll never be able to attend those events either. So most actors have part-time food service jobs and they're always coming and going. So what you saw in the movie was, straight up truth. It was stereotypical truth, but it was truth. It's the reason I took a 10 year hiatus from the industry. It became impossible to work full-time and visit clients for potential work. It's not like you leave your office on lunch, say hi and go back. It takes hours to get across town from your work and hours to get back, thanks to the never-ending traffic jam that's LA. Ohh and trying to find a "good" job with flexible hours, good luck, they just don't exist. WOOAHHH Hold the horses. If you're part of a famous group on tour, you're gonna have a lot of money. His goal was to start a jazz club and remember, when we return to the story after they split up, it's been 5 years. So he raked in the cash since he didn't need a place to live on tour and he had enough to start a club. This is 100% realistic to me, there are clubs just like that all over LA (not jazz, but other forms of music) and a lot of them were started by famous musicians. One could argue that 5 years isn't enough time for that to happen, but if you're focused on it, then why not? Sometimes the right deal happens and you jump. I think it's pretty realistic, though them not talking in 5 years isn't. With social media, they'd be talking to one another for sure. It's called "split opinion syndrome", where the negative buzz drives even more people to like it. This movie isn't purposely crafted that way, it's just that a lot of people can't buy into something so magical and truthful - truth may not be the best form of entertainment. People who don't live in L.A. who aren't in the industry, they may think it's bullshit so they just write it off. Maybe they don't want to see some "hollywood" person struggle through life, thinking they've got it made. Most people don't have any clue the struggles us hollywood types go through on an hourly basis to make our dreams come true. I also didn't think the goal of the film was to bring back musical's. I think the story holds it's own without the dance numbers. La La Land is good ol' hollywood entertainment and ya know, it's much needed in this world of serious drama's. I've seen almost all of the best picture nods and ya know, they're all ok, but none of them are as downright entertaining as La La Land. Some of the competition this year was downright boring... 'Moonlight' being the top of that pile. I don't go to the movies to see something boring, I go to see something entertaining. I want to be moved, emotionally involved and "care" about the characters. Maybe that's why I liked La La Land so much, because I understood first hand what the characters were going through. Maybe it's that association that drives so many people to like it and others, well they simply can't associate with the idea of people wanting to have success in hollywood, it goes right over their head. When you're struggling to put food on your own table, why would you like a movie that shows two hollywood star's "struggle", its like some sick joke.

Well, they played the story "truthful". What you see in La La Land is pretty much the truth straight up. To play it as a happy love story, would NOT be the truth and it would defy the point of making it. In a world full of falsehoods on screen, FINALLY we see the truth. It's the problem with Hollywood and getting involved with someone who has a similar career path, in this case stage music and acting. They're both very similar professions, both require travel, both require prep and long hours, both are make it or break it careers. Living in Hollywood, it gives you an appreciation of how representative the film is of the hardships and sacrifices people make for their "art". I could go on all day on the sacrifices I've made, but they PAIL in comparison to some of my friends. I've physically seen very similar stories to that of La La Land, unfold in front of my eyes. Needless to say, La La Land's staying power is that Hollywood simply doesn't make movies like it anymore. So, to see such a production coming from Hollywood, is pretty amazing and it IS a very entertaining movie, which is the whole point. I left the theater really enjoying La La Land because of these points above. I didn't think of the historical aspects at all, I simply went in and loved what I saw on screen. I even got teared up a few times due to the masterful filmmaking, mixing visuals with music and the somewhat somber ending. I mean what's better then something that MOVES you, right? You want to FEEL that emotion and I believe the movie does a good job. Is it the best movie of 2017? Probably not, but it's the best movie that came out of HOLLYWOOD and that's the important piece of context. If you look at the rest of the world, there are probably better made and more interesting movies out there.

And I bet NONE of those Alexa films were upresed to 4k for finishing. I bet they were all finished in 2k, which is a real shame. It's funny because 4k is truly a buzz word, it really "means" nothing to most people. They either request "alexa" or they request a "4k camera", not fully understanding what any of that means.

It was a real "cinematographers" movie. La La Land was more "powerful" with it's imagery though. So over-all, it takes the cake in my view.

So disappointed in the nominations this year. Some movies simply don't belong on any of those lists and others like 'Jackie' have been snuffed. 'Hell or Highwater' gets a best picture and best screenplay nod? Are you kidding me? For cinematography, I'm stoked Bradford Young got recognized. The rest were shoe-in's, but I was concerned Bradford would be on the sidelines. Sadly, I don't think he'll win. :( La La Land is going to clean up. They'll sweep everything they're nominated for, which is pretty much everything. The other movie that was snuffed at the Golden Globes was Kubo. BY FAR the best Animation film in 2016, arguably the best animation film made in years. :sigh:

Technically "indy" means, the finances have nothing to do with distribution. They are "independent" and the filmmakers can go wherever they want to go.

You forget Richard, I'm not talking about an award winning feature-film director with successes under their belt. This ENTIRE DISCUSSION is about someone making their first movie. Everything I'm talking about is "in context" with that, even if I don't mention it every time I write something. Plus... you aren't making indy's Richard. If you're getting paid in advance by a distributor to make a movie, you've exited "indy" and moved on to another league. That's a positive thing, it means your successful enough to make a product and sell it, so bravo. Save the "indy" title for a bloke trying to make a feature with a crate of ramen noodles, fifty bux and an iPhone. :P You're right, my IMDB is horrible because I don't track people down and force them to put my name on the movies I've consulted on. I have a problem with those things and ya know what, I completely acknowledge it. It's the reason I don't have a great demo reel, because I forget to ask for a finished product for the movies I've worked on and loose the contact info for the client. I've worked on dozens of features and short subjects that aren't even on IMDB for one reason or another. I started 20 years ago and was out of the industry for 10 years! So yea... the credit list kinda sucks and I apologize for that. Maybe someday I'll have to re-trace my steps back in Boston and track down the people I worked with to get copies and credit for my work. Until then... my IMDB and demo reel... well, it makes me look like an idiot. :(

We just did a film with recognizable talent and we paid them a "day rate" because they liked the project. The documentary I did 3 years ago was stars from front to back and we paid them $150/day. They basically worked for free. When you live blocks from the stars, anything is possible. If you write "bit rolls" for your A- cast, maybe a 2 - 3 day shoot situation, you can get people to show up IF there is a good producer on board. You budget $1200/day for a A- actor and $500/day for a B+ actor. Anything over 5 days and/or A- actor being the "lead" and your screwed. Things get complicated very fast and actors will want distribution-crushing back end deals that can end a movie before it even begins. The key is to taylor your script for those bit rolls. This way you have "star power" on your poster, even if they're bit rolls. Again, you need ONE A- actor and ONE B+ actor in any project you do. You can get A'sh talent for SAG schedule F rate of $64k, but it's more complicated then that. It actually costs around $72k to have a top cast member on set for the entire length of production. You don't NEED greater then A-, but I've heard of A+ actors, working for less then $64k, with complete back-end deals. If they like your script, if they want to help you out, they will come. For sure not something you can bank on, but it does happen. Distribution advance? They don't exist for indy's. Earlier I said, you don't want a distributor to have any contract with you prior to the film being made. You want an "agreement" that the distributor will take your movie on IF it's made, but no more. The moment you sign advance agreements, prior to the film being made, you're screwed. Nobody is getting money for their movie up front. What you get is a distributor willing to risk $100k or so on P&A and hope for the best. On a $350k movie, you will need to make back $500k in order to break even. This includes paying off investors percentages, paying off key crew back-ends (deferred pools) and paying off P&A/E&O costs. $500k is a lot of money, but it's a lot easier to recoup. There are a dozen distribution methods available, each of which will whittle away at that number until it's gone. If your movie is a total, utter, gross failure, it will take years to get it all back, but it's doable. I can't imagine helming a multi-million dollar INDY movie, where the recoup is 3M or something like that. Making that back is very difficult and at that point, luck plays a MUCH bigger roll.

Ohh, 500k? HA! Yea, that's a tough market to be in. For indy's, you NEED to be in the SUB $250k market. The vast majority are made for under $150k and then fundraise another $50k or so for finishing, making the total amount under $250. Also, you wouldn't borrow money from banks, you would have private people put in money for X% returns on receipts. Most of the time you can secure money on cast deal memo's. You also need a distributor who can sign off and say they'd take the movie. Doesn't need to be a financial agreement, just something really basic. A top producer also needs to be on-board pre-financial agreement being made. Deal memo's for your crew also helps, again this is all part of a well made business plan. I'm talking about making stuff at the $250 - $350k budget range. If you go much over $350, the risk factor for investors goes through the roof and I fret their interest will wane. Crowd funding solves these problems, but you need to hire a full-time person to "produce" the crowd funding project, whilst you the filmmaker are focused on getting the movie prepared. I also don't think you can raise $250 - $350k via crowd funding without some huge pre-arranged donors. If you had $150k in the pot, that helps greatly. The script I'm writing now could be made for $250k, but I'm budgeting more like $350k.