Tyler Purcell

Great example, so is Amelie. So riddle me this... why couldn't the look of Delicatessen been done in camera? Do you know if they did a writeup in AC about it? I bet they did, it's such a magnificently shot film.

I just bought and watched the new Star Trek 2 bluray, wow it's quite amazing. I was shocked they didn't do any cleanup work what so ever. You could see the matte lines and everything, quite cool if you ask me. I was also amazed how many soft shots there were. I have unfortunately never seen it on film and the older VHS, Laserdisc and DVD I still own, don't hold a candle to this wonderful new transfer. Really great to see Paramount is holding true to what the series is all about and not mucking about like so may others have done in the past. The very few added shots were seamless as well. Great recommendation David, really recommend it to any other trekkies.

Looks gorgeous, I'll for sure check it out. This is the directors 2nd movie, so fingers are crossed, I really liked whiplash.

Richard is right, it's a separate entity all together. I've done the math and tried a few things on various shoots. I think the best way to do crafty is the more traditional way, hire someone whose done it before, knows how to shop properly and pay them $150/day labor + $150/day for food. I think it's a mistake to mix breakfast, lunch and dinner into "crafty". I've tried that tactic before on set, but it makes for longer breaks. People want run and go food during the day, so a table setup and some easy/simple food on it, works great. I'm very much into fruit and vegetables in small coolers, healthy run and go snack packs (which crafty makes each morning) and of course, the typical chips and stuff. The big mistake people make with crafty is not spending enough and buying sugar treats, that just kills it for everyone. Also, the "dinner" part would not be every day. Most day's we'd just serve left-overs from lunch for dinner IF we don't go overtime. It would be for the strike crew only. On days we go over, that's when a full dinner will be given prior to strike.

There are guys who shoot this way, absolutely... But I think there aren't very many. I have yet to work on any project of any kind related to digital where the color correction process wasn't intense with multiple nodes, mattes and trackers. Heck the two shows I'm cutting know, we're lit very well but the color out of the camera is so far off and doesn't match shot to shot, thanks to camera shifting day by day, it's hard to watch the rough cut. We have scenes shot with two identical cameras, matched in the rental house, which fall out of sync with one another as the days of production moved on. It's been an absolute nightmare, and it's going to take weeks to color.

1.33:1 or 2.35:1 anamorphic.

Welcome to the Internet... And you do know, this is an Internet forum, a place to share your opinions on things, right? There are millions of people bitching and moaning about everything on the Internet. That's just the reality of things. Most of them probably don't have a clue what they're talking about. At least I've got a little bit of one.

Why are you picking on me? John is the person who put you in your place related to catering, I was merely agreeing with him. Richard did the same thing when it came to "good" movies, earlier in this thread. I merely agreed with him. Stop the "beef" dude, it's getting old. I posted a "workable" budget, based on actual data that took time to compile. What have you done? Why don't you read it and learn from it, instead of blasting one minuscule part?

Right, so when you're on location somewhere random, there is a huge building to protect the crew from the sunlight during that ONE half hour break they get every 6hrs? Ohh and surly crew will eat soup and crackers, that's the "standard" meal eh? You had to pick two movies with pretty much no crew, being shot on weekends for fun, in places where nobody cares, more then 20 years ago. Times have changed and I have no interest in making a feature with my buddies on the weekends for payment in pizza. You pay to make it right, or you're not ready to make it.

I'm sorry, but even though a "student" could cook the food, that doesn't mean they have a box truck ready to go with all the KEY accessories necessary for catering. I see your confusion, John touched on it above. You don't grasp/understand the complexity of catering a meal what so ever.

Honestly, the catering budget is WAY lower then I'd normally run. I'd generally be up around $1800/day for food including staff. Food is what drives your crew and if you have crap, they will not work as hard. If you want a happy crew, give them happy food, stuff that makes their bodies feel well. This way, there isn't a mid-day sleepy cycle. Everyone will be energized and ready to work, thanks to being fed properly. Also... good luck finding someone to work every day to prepare three meals, setup tables, chairs, pop up tents to protect from sunlight. Then have a multi-course meal for both meat eaters and vegans. Deal with the trash, left overs, wrap everything on your own and leave at the end of the day. I mean, very few people have the resources to do all of that AND do a good job, certainly no "student" chef.

Yea John hit the nail on the head. Plus, I believe in hot breakfast for ALL members of the cast, crew and extras, in the morning. This means people don't need to eat food at home at all, we can provide them all meals. Plus, vegan options are becoming more and more critical, which adds a substantial amount of money to each meal. Honestly if anything, I find my food budget LOWER then it COULD be. We spent $12,000 on the last show for food and it was pretty bad.

I'll just post a budget here! Why not! :) http://tye1138.com/stuff/forposting/standardbuget.pdf This budget is for a local Los Angeles film, without any "hookup's". So it would be all location shooting with a pretty small, no-name cast and not a very long shoot... 18 days booked as it sits. The only real way to reduce the cost is to produce it in less time, using lower end equipment, as those are the two biggest areas that could be trimmed. I've been able to get this budget down to the 300k range by simply decreasing the amount of days. However, it's a complex story (lots of locations) that really needs to be shot creatively, so in my view it's better to let the DP have time and do it right then rush through things. Ohh and yes, there are some minor mistakes in there, but the "numbers" themselves are pretty sound.

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.