Tyler Purcell

So instead of hitting me with a hammer, why don't you educate? I asked the question: "Maybe you know the appropriate term for those people?" and all you did was call my opinion ignorant and dumb. Satsuki, in my youth, I shot quite a few national television commercials. Back then we called that industry "commercial/fashion". I have no idea what people call it today, but that's the term I've always used because that's what the agency I worked for, billed me out as. Unfortunately, I left that industry when I moved to Los Angeles and got into features. So honestly, I have no idea what they call that industry today, 18 years down the road. It think you just assumed I was using "fashion" as a derogatory term to put down Matt's work. Just the opposite, I have high praise for the masters of that art form, but it's an entirely different skill set then; narrative, documentary and industrial, which is my point.

It's relevant because, he panders to people who don't know better. Well thanks for calling me dumb and ignorant.

Hey man, welcome to the internet.

He does A LOT more then you think. Visit his website sometime and take a look at his previs products. I've always called commercial cinematographers "fashion", because their job is to make whatever they shoot, as ultra pretty as possible. That's not necessarily the goal of ALL forms of cinematography. In my eyes, the mere concept of 3d previs for a single camera setup, is a "fashion" situation. You will be shooting an object or person against a backdrop and you will be lighting/lensing specifically for the beauty of the subject. Maybe you know the appropriate term for those people? Yes, they do one thing really good. So when Matt's video's talk about cinematography, he opens the doors for anyone who wants to be a cinematographer. Yet, all he discusses is ONE sector of the industry. It's confusing to people who want to work as narrative, documentary or industrial cinematographers. Matt's whole discussion is based on working one or two days on a project, with heavy pre-vis and very close client interaction. This is why he suggests working for free. In my world, a cinematographer works for months on and off, sometimes for weeks straight. So if that were the case, I couldn't make any income through another job. This is the disconnect between his work and the work that I'm familiar with; narrative, documentary and industrial. So his data isn't really that accurate with broad strokes in my opinion.

You misinterpreted what I meant by my comment. The history of the cut down Auricon, Robert Drew of Life magazine and Don Pennebaker, is the critical thing. What they developed wound up being re-packaged by the fledgling Cinema Products. The key here and why it's so critical, is because the other manufacturers learned from the "Americans" mistakes. They saw still images of the cut down Auricon and realized what they could do better. Remember, not very much later, Arri released the BL, which didn't use a coaxial magazine and like the cut down Auricon and CP16, wasn't a great hand-held camera. It took them 10 years to release their first coaxial design, whilst Eclair and eventually Aaton, already had one. So in one part you're accurate, the French and German (modern) cameras followed a different path to the American design. However, had those manufacturers not seen the hobbled together American design, they may have gone a similar direction. Their designs were absolutely influenced by cameras like the cut down Auricon, of which the only example today is the CP16. So in my opinion, the CP16 design is an influential part of the modern designs. It's the "what not to do" syndrome.

I guess you just don't understand the historical ramifications of that camera, more specifically, the cut-down Auricon it was based on.

Why did you make this statement? When did I ever say the Arri and Aaton's came from the CP16 design? Please quote me.

It's funny because I own a pretty good film camera and I rent it all the time. However, I do find it strange when people want a newer camera. Sometimes I have to talk them into using mine because frankly, outside of the latest generation of film cameras, there were many years where things were pretty similar across the board. The CP16R is a perfectly capable camera, yet it has some negative stigma. I for one don't like the threading aspect of it. I also don't much care for the viewfinder which can't be oriented like other newer cameras. I also have issues with the magazine design and belt drive which is not only a wear item, but archaic. The battery system is also attrocious. You can forget about all the other issues like lens mount capabilities, lack of easy s16 conversion (most guys do ultra 16 since you don't need to re-center the lens) and weight; the CP16R is heavy, not very balanced on the shoulder (front heavy). Also, I had the worst experience with the CP16R, ruining one of my movies due to the backplate roller ball, not being centered on the spring, scraping the backcoating off the film for an entire roll. With all that said, it's not a bad camera. If I showed you stuff shot with it and a good piece of glass, you couldn't tell the difference between it and my LTR. Yet when using the camera, the LTR is a better camera to use. It's less cumbersome, it's quieter and pretty much all of the issues above have been remedied. Yes the CP16R is an older camera, yes it was designed for news photography, especially with mag striped film... but it Aaton and Arri's whole purpose for introducing the LTR and SR models, was to capitalize on that market. Unfortunately, they came in a bit later and were a lot more money. By the time they were popular, TV had already switched to video. Once 3/4" hit the market in the late 70s, the writing was on the wall for film. Sony charged to much for the barely portable system at the time, so many facilities kept shooting film into the early 80s, but the change over happened overnight with the first betacam all in one camera. That was the final nail in the coffin for 16mm and broadcast news. Of course 16mm was still the go to format for long form pieces, but that died off in the 90s when digibeta and eventually HDCAM, really took it over. Had Kodak made vision 3 stock in the early 90s, I think people would have shot more 16, but the older stocks were so grainy... It was a harder sell compared to the very clean digital. But yea... I feel your pain. I honestly would only own a CP16R for historic value. I think it would be great for my students to see and understand where all the modern designs came from.

Ohh no doubt... And I watched a lot of his stuff before commenting. I just don't understand how someone who is working full time as a cinematographer had enough time to make all those YouTube videos, promote them, answer questions and develop a whole other previs business. My other beef is his mentality is focused on commercial and music video work. Fashion cinematography in my eyes, is an entirely different business then narrative, documentary and industrial. He goes so far as to admit, his advice is not relative to narratives. In my eyes, narratives are the key to becoming a good cinematographer because they shoot a lot of material, in varying locations, extremely fast. You don't have time to previs many scenes if any, which is why the top cinematographers who shoot narratives, are so amazing. So personally, I'd rather listen to the advice of a traveled veteran, who has worked on all types of shows, then a NYC commercial specialist giving general cinematography advice. Not to say his advice is wrong, much of it is right. I just feel he needs to spend more time doing other types of projects in other locations to learn about how to make money off your work, rather then being so hyper focused on giving away your time as a method of getting "work".

There really isn't any major difference between the two cameras. Here is a manual for you: http://celluloiddreaming.com/documents/ltrmanual.pdf

I was thinking 'Taxi Driver', but I knew David would come down on me like a ton of bricks, because as he points out, it's very much focused on Travis. I was thinking about a film like 'Midnight Cowboy' or 'Leon'.

Yea, it's a pretty bonkers "career" path because only a select few, actually make enough at it to be worth doing it in the first place.

As a filmmaker though, you'd want to show the rest of the world what NYC is like, wouldn't you? I mean there are dozens of movies shot in NYC which have the same attitude about the city.

Where I don't think film school is worth while today, I do think "college" for a second/backup career is critical. I was lucky to already have TWO backup careers, certifications and everything, during my college years. So I wasn't concerned... but a lot of people SHOULD be concerned. Also, if you need a good job to pay for your filmmaking, you will need a degree of some kind. A lot of people can't tolerate being a perpetual freelancer. It's VERY difficult to raise a family on freelance work in 2016. 20 years ago, it was the mainstay in this industry, but today the rates for freelance work have plummeted. This is because consumers have so much to choose from, it's watered down content in a way which makes it difficult to make money. The only industries still standing are corporate, training and commercial. Using me as example again, I got really lucky and met someone on craigslist randomly two years ago and I've been working for him steadily ever since. If you have two or three of those guys in your back pocket, people who are always working on new stuff, then you'll be OK financially. However, if you can't find those people, then you've gotta get a real job. Nothing wrong with that, but if you don't have any degree's, it's much harder, especially with so may OTHER people submitting resumes WITH degrees.

4 or 3 perf?

ROFL!!!! I love that guy! :D He kinda has it nailed.

I also think it's down to the studio's not willing to take ANY risks. Most studio films are made by committee in their final on-screen presentations. Directors and Producers don't have the same clout in the final product as they did only 10 years ago. So if you wish to make a studio film, if you want to make a lot of money, you just follow whatever they ask you to do. Just look at what happened to the Fantastic Four Reboot, or even Star Wars Rogue One. Both films that had extensive re-shoots because the first generation finished product was not general public enough. Rogue One suffered from being "too star wars", which is just retarded. That's the whole POINT of a Star Wars film. The last Star Wars film was pretty tame as well, nothing controversial, nothing really interesting, just meh... it's a Star Wars film. Lots of whiz bang to keep your mind occupied and the rest is all a well planned formula. When I watch MODERN movies, I see mathematical formulas, everything is so hyped up, everything is so flashy, everything is to clean and precise. You've gotta watch the non-studio produced films, to see anything like the movies I grew up with, which is really sad. So I don't think it has much to do with not getting it. We're just making worse films. Yes, there are a few that sneak by, usually made by the same filmmakers over and over again, Christopher Nolan being one of them. What confuses me is how Nolan can make these big movies, which are well made, well written and make a lot of money, but nobody else can. Even the likes of Steven Spielberg struggle in today's market. So yea, I mean there is something to be said of our youth not understanding particular subjects like comic book or star trek stories. But what about the rest of the crap that shows up every week? I mean most aren't based on "classic" franchises, most are original stories. I mean I look at the utter crap available to us at the box office and I say to myself, how long is going to last?

Right, "What" you are shooting, what is in the scene, is generally far more important anyway. Satsuki points out, there are opportunities to work on projects that could have great art direction, actors and decent locations. However, who says any of the other players are any good? It's a pretty big crapshoot if you ask me.

Very accurate and important statement Phil. I've never been on a low-paid shoot with top of the line equipment. Most of the time it's older stuff the filmmakers get for free and without paying for decent/proper lighting equipment, how can you really make a scene look good? Also, as JD pointed out, it's ultra rare people come through to give you better/paid work after you helped out on their no-budget project. I've also spent months, sometimes years, trying to get copies of projects. I have copies of about 1/10th of what I've shot and most of those are my own projects.

And please show me where I said technician's should give away their labor time for free? Don't bother looking because it was never said. My point in regards to service technicians is that they charge too much money for both labor and parts because they expect to make a living off dinosaur technology. Today, the equipment value is less then the service required to keep it running. So how is that a sustainable industry? If I break my little $200 computer speakers, do you think it's worth it for me to send it to a service facility who will charge me $500 to fix them? No, I will fix them myself OR buy another set of speakers. There are two options to sustain camera service... one is to charge less money. The other is to train everyone how to do it themselves, which could be a "paid" website. Nobody would ask a camera technician to repair their camera for free and likewise, a filmmaker shouldn't ask a director of photography to work for free either. I don't see any double standard at all, just people confused as ever on what I mean.

Landon, the vast majority of people "work" for some sort of compensation. Also, do you really want some random guy working on your project that is so desperate for work, they'll do it for free? That same guy will spend his own money on gas to get there every day. That same guy will work 12hr+ days, with a bunch of other "crew", none of which are getting paid. That same guy is expected to show up every day on time and do a job they may have never done before? Here is the reason why almost every filmmaker at one point in their life, from Spielberg to JJ Abrams, has been a PA... - You learn what it's like to be on set right away, learning all the terminology required for working on films. - Most PA's are just like you, they want to be "filmmakers" and tell stories of some kind. - You will bond with other PA's in your group and do projects outside of work together. - The PA community (especially commercial) is ever evolving, so you'll always meet new people, even if you're called to work with the same group. - Most PA's are paid $125 - $150/day, so even though it's long days, you WILL get income, without having a specific skill set. - Being on set, means you're literally right next to the jobs you may want to do in the future. - If you can become friends with UPM's or production coordinators, they will help you get up the ladder in whatever position you want. I have seen set/production PA's moved to camera PA and eventually to assistant camera. Heck, I've seen PA's move to directors assistants. Being a PA is a great doorway into being on set and building your chops. Yes, it will take a few tries to get onto a decent paying long-term project with like minded individuals. However, once you do... sky is the limit! Film school is a waste of time today. Today, it's far better to attend college for a backup career, one that makes money and spend your off-time making little films and working with a local film community of students. I know many people in college who were in different programs, who wanted to be part of student filmmaking, it happens. poop man, if you've got a full-time job and you make movies for fun, who cares what you do, who cares if there is any money. The point of this thread is to discuss career-minded people not being paid for their hard work. If you're just out having fun with friends, money generally doesn't fall into the equation.

Sure, but isn't that the whole idea? Don't we look at what other people say and try to figure out how their words fit our own situation? He is a successful "commercial" cinematographer, but that's a speciality market. His agent isn't booking him feature/television or even short-form, narrative or documentary, as there aren't really any credits on IMDB to show that work. So sure, that's why he gets 3k a day, to basically be a fashion cinematographer in NYC, of which there are many of. So his "advice" on getting work is pinpointed on his own little world, living in NYC and being a part of the "commercial" industry. I understand your point of freelancing for free in order to experiment, meet new people and build relationships. But as I said earlier, who says those people will re-hire you? Who would have any devotion to some guy they brought in for free, unless of course you continue working for free. At some point, after a bunch of freebee's, you've gotta tell them no and they'll just find someone else. That's the problem Satsuki, generally if you work for free, it means you are "that guy" who can always be called upon to work for free. Also, I don't know WHAT Matt has done. It's clear he's an entrepreneur and enjoys 3D pre-vis, but outside of that, I have no idea. I get his point, I just don't agree with it at all. I don't agree with filmmakers "hiring" people for no money. I don't agree with ANYONE in this industry, student, novice, expert, NOT getting paid for time they spend on someone else's project. If it's your own project, if you're working with close friends, if it's a student project or even something commercial for a client who you DO make money with on other projects... then OK, I get it. There are very specific situations where financial gain isn't relevant/important. However, to say most of the time you'll be working for free is setting up poor innocent people watching his video, for failure in my book. How is some kid who just graduated college, going to follow his advice? Right, but I'm a pretty big advocate for going out and shooting your own stuff to practice your craft. It's hard to do that when you don't have a camera. What makes you so certain those freebee's will work vs shooting your own stuff with friends?

Forget about the cinematographer for a second... think about the person who would advertise they need a cinematographer for a job, show up to set with a super technocrane and Alexa with Arri Super Speed's and not be able to pay their cinematographer ANYTHING. No gas money, no $100 and a hand shake, NOTHING! The problem is the paradigm today is free help. Doesn't matter what position you're in, whether it's audio, editing, gaffing, cinematography, acting or even writing/directing. Everyone wants something for free and it's the reason this industry has fallen apart. How do you build relationships with filmmakers who only value equipment but not your effort?

If you've already made it, you've got consistent/steady money coming in through your agent and you want to help out friends on your spare time between jobs, I can see doing a day or two for free, just to "experiment" with things. However, what Matt states is an entirely different thing. He suggests and promotes giving away your services no matter what because in his words "you're not good enough". That may sound "realistic" but it isn't when you've gotta pay the bills as well. So I guess if all you do is little fun jobs on the weekends with friends, in between your full-time job, who cares if you get paid for those fun jobs right? But you can't have a full time job because when you score a good gig, it's most likely going to be during the week. My first feature was a surprise, they can knocking and if I had a job, I would have not been able to take it. Same goes for all the work I've had this year. Its been literally non-stop and there is no way I could have had any essence of a regular job. Also... there is a HUGE difference between no-pay and low-pay. I've worked on several pretty large productions for $150/day, because they had a full crew and paid everyone the same rate. Heck, I was just the camera op on a feature length educational series that wrapped last week and it was $300/day, but I didn't even flinch because it was "acceptable" money and I know the budget limitations. It's not the DP's who I'm frustrated with, it's the filmmakers who feel entitled enough to post online looking for free help. It's one thing to help your friends, it's another for a random person to ask for help and expect you to do it for free. It's the same in post production, there are literally millions of people who will bark at the opportunity to work for free, which is really sad. There is a big difference between mentoring with an expert at a certain trade AND doing it yourself. Man, I'd absolutely work for free if it meant I could stand beside a top cinematographer and learn. It's funny you mention this because I wholeheartedly agree. However, I don't think you need to take "FREE" work in order to build a reel. Helping friends for a day is great, I do it all the time. But I think you should be able to score real paid work to help your reel. Personally, my biggest struggle is not having a decent camera/lens package. People just expect cinematographers to have their own equipment, which really sucks. I mean, I do have my own equipment, its just film not digital. So I do get work out of my cameras, just not as much as I could if I had 4k digital stuff. All of that to say, I agree that a day of freebee work to get some fodder for your reel seems worth it. If I were placed in your shoes, I may also take it. However, that's not every show you do.

Ahh yes! That thing! Very cool device, I always wondered how much it was used. Thanks for the wonderful post about it, good to know! :)