Tyler Purcell

I've been told many rental houses including Panavision, have lease deals with manufacturers directly. This is what keeps the start up costs lower.

I've done dozens of budgets and have recently spent a lot of time learning from some pretty decent UPM's. What I've learned is pretty interesting and for sure changes my opinion on the matter. $400k with no real cast, is absolutely doable. Heck, you "could" squeeze a few days of an A lister in there if you wanted AND probably have a decent B+ actor. My personal philosophy also doesn't jive with most filmmakers. I tend to pace myself during production, rather then rush through scenes just to get the shot. So I tend to schedule/budget 18 - 20 day shoots, rather then the typical two week shows we see so much. Obviously if you can make a feature in two weeks, the budget will be a lot less. However, the reduced stress on the crew AND attention to detail you get by adding a few days, really pays off in my opinion. It's far better to have a slightly smaller crew that's very mobile and in-tune with what the director wants on a slightly longer schedule, then a huge crew on a shorter schedule trying to bang out scenes as quickly as possible. That's just my opinion, having worked on both sides of the fence. If you want me to send you some budgets, I'd be more then happy to show you what I'm talking about. I have a pretty decent spreadsheet and you can see where the money goes. It's the little things that kill budgets, the "creature comforts" which bloat them. If you've got a script that's set in one location and everyone drives in every day to set, that's going to cost a lot less then a show that's set in many different locations all around the place, with potentially hotels and travel involved. So the "scope" of your picture makes a huge difference and it's part of the issue when writing a script. You can keep it very simple, but will it be interesting enough to be bought? Finally, I don't believe in freebee's. So I budget for everything from storyboard artist through sales agent. From pre-production days to four wall private and public screenings once finished. These are ALL critical parts of your budget and a lot of people just flash right over them like they don't exist. Again, if you don't care about your movie ever going into theaters, NONE of this is even worth discussing. Go make your little digital movie and put it on iTunes for a few grand. I'm only discussing theatrical.

It matters because I actually care about what's happening in our society thanks to modern entertainment. I see it first hand and a lot of people have turned a blind eye to it. I also care because when I'm ready to make a feature, when my ducks are all in a row and I've got the funding in place, it maybe nearly impossible for ME to make something good because the channels for distribution will be clogged with static, it will be hard for a little, well-made movie to sneak through. The only reason I'm living here is to make movies. Otherwise I'd be in an entirely different industry living somewhere else. My livelihood is hinged on making movies and so are the lives of the people I hang out with. I see the struggles they go through, they see the hard work I put in and we all look at each other and understand full well, what the problem is. Here is the difference... the cost of living has skyrocketed in the last 10 - 15 years. It's not gone up with inflation like it has in years previous. It was actually a lot less money to make movies even 15 years ago. But there was also far more investment then there is today. Please do a $250k budget for a 90 minute feature film and tell me how much you'd pay your sales agent, your talent, your cinematographer or even yourself. Then see if any of the numbers make a living wage for the people who you hire.

Ultra 16 doesn't require as much modification to the camera as super 16. The moment you start re-centering the lens, that's when things become a problem. I have seen people mix Ultra 16 and Super 16, why not? Also, your numbers are a tiny bit off. Super 16 is 12.42 x 7.49 = 93mm. The moment you crop the top and the bottom, the difference is negligible. So you re talking about 15 x 6.25 = 93.75mm. You have a gain of .75 over all, but there would be a lot of wasted space on the negative. So overall you'd be loosing quality because width isn't necessarily the most important thing. Honestly, I'd take 4 perf Super 35mm any day of the week over 3 perf in terms of look because it's a taller image, meaning the field of view is wider. The moment you start cropping the field of view down, that's when the format starts looking... well, smaller. Super 16 already has issues with field of view, so to add MORE issues, doesn't seem very logical. Yes it sucks to loose the space between the sprocket holes, but that area will never be as clean as the area from the sprocket holes to the frame edge. Since the pressure plate of the camera, must push the film into the gate to keep it from skipping during pulldown. So in my eyes, I think super 16 is VERY CLOSE to the best you can do with the format. What us 16mm filmmakers need is cheaper/lower cost 1.3x anamorphic lenses. That would solve the 2.35:1 aspect ratio issues and retain the field of view.

I was implying that indy filmmakers should hone their craft and learn the business of filmmaking prior to churning out feature-length products. I was also stating that due to the decreasing budgets, there is less and less decent paid work for skilled tradesmen. Most of the super talented people I know in the industry today, work more then they have in the past AND make far less money. I'd rather see 50 $1.5M indy's a year then hundreds of sub 100k one's, like we have today... all fighting for the same positioning within the industry.

Yea, but if it's good, there is FAR more "agreement" amongst the public. If it's not so good, that's when things fall apart and personal opinion makes a difference.

That would have been nice. I had to transcode and sync everything myself... I was the DIT on one of the projects, so I guess it doesn't count.

WOW, who said I dictated what film was good. I said "we" know what films are good. "We" the viewing public.

I spent the last 3 months working on two 250k indy features. When it's time for post production it's "we can't afford to pay you up front, but we need a cut of the feature in a week". Wait... A week? You do know it's takes longer then a week to even get a feature film synched up, let alone cut it. That's just one example of the insanity I'm dealing with.

Well there is a universal standard... we know what good movies are. We've all seen them and every year, there are a few that pop on the radar. I don't go to the cinemas to waste time, I have a beautiful home theater for that. I go to the cinema to see and experience something I can't at home. Whether that's seeing a big movie opening night with an audience or seeing something presented on film, those are really the only two reasons I'd go. A lot of people feel the same way, which is why unique ticket sales have been down year over year since the early 2000's. People would rather watch at home because it's less money and FAR less risk, thanks to the crap in theaters today. There have always been bad movies, but today since there is a new way to see movies at home without having to hit up a video store, there is a lot more crappy content accessible at home then ever before.

I couldn't agree with you more. The sad fact is that because it's accessible, people just do it. They do instead of thinking. This floods the market with absolutely garbage product that fills up the $4.99 DVD bins with stuff that nobody in their right mind would watch. The good news is, the market for horribly produced features in the US is waining. I know people who work at those crappy C- movie production companies and they've cut budgets in half or even worse, just to be competitive. So as those movies are getting worse and worse, there is a little more room for the decent indies. What people forget is the physical act of production and even post to a certain extent, is only a small portion of the over-all project. Script, Storyboards and Pre-Production, is where your movie is made. The meme that's floating around Facebook right now is "fix it in prep", which is exactly the opposite of what people currently do. It's so easy today to fix things months, maybe even years after the shoot in post. That paradigm is the heart and soul of the digital world we live in today. When you work on bigger films, when you see all the completely unnecessary visual effects shots, put there because during production, the filmmakers couldn't get their act together... it just makes you realize how bad the filmmakers are. In the last 10 years, I've seen indy budgets go from 1.5M to 250k. With 1.5M, you can have a decent cast, you can have a decent union crew, you can have excellent support during production, decent post AND shoot on film. A 1.5M feature with the right script and good marketing potential, is something that could easily turn around and make 2 - 5M from domestic/international theatrical and video. A 250k movie (pre-production, production, post production, distribution) is going to be horrible, it just is. You're basically limiting yourself to green screen, visual effects, single locations, poor unknown actors, poor crew and most importantly, not have enough money left over for all the finishing work necessary to make it good. What filmmakers don't get... and I say this to SO many people; it's FAR BETTER to produce high-end, well produced short subject products, then poorly made feature-length products. Just do the math... If you're making a 15 - 20 minute short film, it's probably 2 - 6 days worth of work at most. You'd raise $5k - $25k from friends, family and crowd funding. It needs to be a group effort as the scope of your final project will be based on that funding. Then all you do is work on weekends, grabbing talented friends to help shoot during the time off between their shoots. You pay them a reasonable rate, have excellent catering and have a lot of fun. It's easier to get bigger cast for a few hours on a weekend as well. Ya know, those little cameo's which help boost the projects validity, they go a lot further in a 15 minute short then a 90 minute feature. I mean no matter what, getting a return investment on a short is nearly impossible. However, having lots of eyes on your project is far more important in my point of view. If you do something special like shoot it on 35mm and have prints for festivals, that really means something. Do a few shorts, get some work on a feature film to learn more about how things work and after a few years of fine tuning your craft, then you'll be ready to make that first feature. :sigh: if only it were THAT simple. LOL :P

I think 35mm just got better with newer stocks, digital audio and better lenses. At the time 70mm was analog audio and with the discontinuation of magnetic striped film, the switch of 70mm to digital meant the older equipment was out of date. So unfortunately, there was a period of time in the early to mid 90's where 70mm wasn't worth the upgrade. Plus after the failure of 'Far and Away', I think people were scared off from shooting large format. 'Hamlet' was the only other movie to be shot entirely in standard 5/65mm with those silent panavision cameras in the 90's. It took almost two decades before another complete 5/65 movie would be shot, that was 'Hateful Eight'. I also think the audience didn't demand large format to the level they do today. Thanks to the huge push towards IMAX in the mid 2000's, the use of large format's has become more standard. The great thing about VistaVision is that it blows up to IMAX very nicely. So you don't need 70mm cameras and stock to get that beautiful field of view. I'm still surprised more filmmakers don't use VistaVision for IMAX movies, instead using digital 2k sources today... which I think is crazy. Don't get me wrong, 5/70 is still the way to go... but it's cost prohibitive compared to ANY 35mm format. The big problem with VistaVision is the noise. It's really a deal killer and many filmmakers don't feel that field of view is worth while on dialog scenes. Much of 'The Master' was shot on 65mm, but the 35mm scenes are mostly close up interior dialog. The 35mm cameras are smaller, easier to navigate and with longer lenses, you really can't tell the difference. With wider lenses, the field of view difference is night and day. On a side note, I don't think 'Contact' shot very much large format. I believe they used 65mm for background plates and VistaVision for actors coverage on those plates. Many films used the same technology at the time. Heck, I was watching the making of the last Nolan Batman Film last night and they used VistaVision for many of the VFX shots. So much of the "IMAX" material in the movie is actually VistaVision.

It was actually pretty widely used because it was easy to blow up to 70mm. So a few of the big roadshow 70mm films, were originated on 35mm Technirama. I've actually been picking up and watching as many as I can recently. Spartacus is absolutely one of the best, but there are some other great ones in there. Zulu, Pink Panther, Music Man, El Cid, King of Kings and Circus World. I had never seen Circus World until recently and it's pretty cool as well. Some of the other films were only printed to 35mm, so they didn't have the phenomenal 4 channel stereo mix and haven't quite retained the image quality of the films that were blown up to 70mm like Spartacus and Circus World. Yea, its already kinda bulky as it is... smaller then I expected, but still pretty big. Part of the reason for the noise is the straight metal gears most likely. That's one of the things that makes so many cameras loud. The movement itself maybe not that loud, but the base of the camera where all the mechanics are, will be killer. Obviously nothing else is setup for quietness either, so even the magazine drive will be louder then it could be. I just don't like big boxes around cameras if it can be avoided, but for those intimate interiors with dialog, it maybe worth building a blimp, if you can make it out of fiberglass or plastic. Make it only a tiny bit bigger then the camera and just stuff it with insulating. That mixed with a little bit of internal insulation, may make it quiet enough. The other way to go is ADR obviously, but if you're doing a bigger project, that becomes a big tricky. Since so many filmmakers are becoming use to IMAX cameras, which are WAY bigger... and so are the 70mm quiet cameras... it makes sense that the VistaVision camera MAY be a great opportunity IF it could work in that scenario.

Digital technology for acquisition has been around for decades now, it's not really new anymore. Even if you take into account modern digital cinema, most products are still being distributed in the original 2k resolution of the FIRST digital cinema formats, developed 20 years ago. Also, there really isn't much if any celluloid waste. People don't throw film into the garbage. Plus, it can be melted down and used to make other products. So the idea there is any real celluloid waste is not founded on any ground. By contrast, as Kenny pointed out, there is HUGE waste in digital. Lets start with batteries... the modern lithium batteries are tremendously environmentally unfriendly manufacturing wise. Most people just throw them into the trash when they stop working. Then you think about digital technology ever evolving and how everyone needs the newest/best thing. What happened to all those DV cameras from the 90's and early 2000s? Everyone had one, they didn't disappear. Today more people have cameras then ever before and even people who work in cinema, have multiple cameras, all of which are bought and sold on a regular basis. How long does it take for one of them to become obsolete? Today everyone wants to shoot on 4k, but what about that perfectly good F900 for instance? Those cameras are being sold for junk on ebay right now. If they can't be sold, it will be off to the recycler for them. You can go out and make a movie on a 100 year old film camera right now if you want and since the "consumable" (film) is what defines the look, it's easy to make it look like a modern movie. All you need is modern stock and glass. The box you use to shoot it with, plays a very small role, unlike digital where the box is everything.

Cool thanks for sharing the video. Yea, I love VistaVision, especially the Technirama anamorphic version. You can obtain an amazing field of view with such a large frame size. I've always wanted to figure out a way to make VistaVision workable as a sync sound camera, because I think if it was, it would be more used. As you well know, the blimps used for the older VistaVision cameras were huge. Today with such a small camera, you'd think it would be pretty easy to isolate SOME of the noise through internal padding. It really depends on how much room there is internally. Where did you guys wind up getting the camera from?

Good ideas and I think it will work fine. How loud is the camera? Like 60db? I haven't heard one running before.

Yea, it's hardware downscaled using the full imager.

Cool project! What are you planning to do about the sound issues (camera loudness) inherent with shooting on VistaVision without a huge blimp?

Mandy has kinda been crap for years anyway. I've had more legitimate gigs off craigslist then Mandy. It's true that a small fee to post and a small fee to check listings, does get rid of the riffraff. There is far more abuse of the system when it's completely free.

I will also congratulate you on finishing a feature, it's really tough! I'm in the middle of shooting/editing two right now! I'm going to make a few notes... 1- The transition idea unfortunately doesn't work well because it feels wrong, as if there is a technical glitch, rather then a creative one. Because there is a dip in black level, it really feels glitchy. 2- The audio is a big problem, not just the trailer music, but the set audio... it has no punch, like it was recorded with the built-in camera mic. 3- Blocking... this is the process of determining where actors are put in a shot in relationship to their environment and how the camera covers the action. Many shots were oddly blocked and when you show a shot of someone's head in a trailer, it makes the movie look worse then it maybe is. All the other technical and acting issues are self evident, but it's to be expected with any ultra-low production and in a lot of cases, can't be fixed easily without money. However, those things I pointed out are things people pick up on very easily and are pretty easy to fix during production. Good luck with the next phase of the project! Editing and then finding a hope for your product is in a lot of cases, far more difficult then even making it. So just be mindful of that as you go along this next phase.

Can you take a snapshot of the get info tab from your quicktime player. I would also love to see it working in FCP7. Nobody I know can get XQ to work in FCP7 and even my contacts at Apple say it's impossible. So what you have there is absolute magic. Maybe there is some odd old/new plugin combo that's making it work? Very strange. I would love to figure it out because I have clients who still use FCP7 and they'd love to playback XQ natively, but currently can't.

Yea, Apple released a codec update this year, that addressed XQ in quicktime based programs like Premiere. However, it's still incompatible with windows and linux machines. So yes, on a 100% updated Mac OS machine, running the absolute latest software, it does work in the newest version of Premiere, Final Cut X and DaVinci. However, what you can do with it is very limited. In fact, on my bay, I can't even open XQ in quicktime, I can only use it in an editor of some kind, as if it needs something the editor does the player doesn't. This is one of the clues of how different XQ is to standard 4444. I playback standard Pro Res 4444 without any issues in Quicktime player, all day, any day.

Sorry? I mean nobody else has brought a lick of evidence to prove anything they believe either. I spent 20 minutes checking the facts I posted on wikipedia and it was all there. Unfortunately, it's too spread out to copy and past sections and links, it's kind messy with no direct connections on there, which sucks.

Please stop picking on every single post I make. I will gladly make a thread to discuss my involvement but it has nothing to do with this topic or the other topics you question my even existence.

They probably don't work with camera originals for their entire cutting. They most likely moved to a mezzanine format during the physical editing of the projects and then brought the XQ media online for finishing.