Tyler Purcell

The cameras I've been talking about record out of the box in iFrame MPEG. Yes, the FS7 and F5 both have hardware updates to allow additional codec's. I've only seen people equip their cameras with those upgrades on rare occasions. I just used an FS7 with the Pro Res card, but only because I was like "HOLY poop" it was a unicorn in the wild! When I'm shooting, I work at a the lowest ISO I can and I will light more to compensate. However, I will still underexpose a tiny bit, to protect highlights. With film, I also work at the lowest ISO I can, but I over expose to that particular ISO, but not by much.

I don't use a meter when shooting digitally, I use a histogram and zebra set at 70. So I'm just use to protecting my highlights, probably a bit more then most people. "LOG" doesn't make enough of a difference. It actually makes the MPEG noise much stronger because it decreases the signal to noise ratio. I've worked quite a bit with raw recently, just to keep myself up to date on the coloring aspects of it. Even with RAW, I'd rather use a lower ISO and under expose a tiny bit, just when the 70% zebra's are starting to show up, that's the cap of my highlights. So I ignore the cameras native ISO rating and shoot like film. This gives less grain/noise, even when you punch it up. This trick works flawlessly on every camera I've worked with, outside of Sony. The Sony cameras don't like it, but then again, I despise Sony. I'll say this much, the C300MKII stuff I shot, looks perfect, with zero grain/artifacts. Yet the stuff our "cinematographer" shot has been noisy, he shot 2000 ISO outside in broad daylight with 1/64 ND. With film, I work just the opposite, I use a meter and I saturate the living crap out of it because I know there will be data in the highlights no matter what. I generally run a full stop over exposed on film, sometimes even setting my meter to compensate. Obviously there are occasions when you don't want that look, but generally I prefer the "pop" look it delivers.

I used Cinelab for years and never once had an issue. Love'em! :)

Yep, they sure are! You do have to push them a tiny bit in order to reduce the noise, that's 100% accurate. The only problem is when you do that, you're limiting how much excess range you have. This is why a camera that isn't noisy, where you CAN underexpose a tiny bit to retain better highlight levels, will be a lot better. This is for sure one the reasons I discount Sony cameras... that AND the cost v features... they tend to be expensive for what they are, thanks to the proprietary accessories.

I'll say this much, I think seeing a lens wide open is far more important then a lens closed down. It really tells you how good the glass is. As David points out, glass becomes more similar when stopped down. The need for good/high speed glass is really only warranted when near to all the way open. Whenever I do a shoot, first thing I do is test lenses all the way open and figure out how much they can be pushed. Looking forward to seeing the test! Thanks for sharing. :)

I'm coloring a show right now that's mixed FS7 and A7SMKII. We shot SLog2 with both cameras and I made a home-made LUT for the A7SMKII because the cinematographer's exposure was all over the map. I'm pretty happy with the results, but its been a lot of work and it's just talking heads. I can't imagine dealing with the sun or anything outside of a closed environment with a larger dynamic range camera is necessary. The FS7 material looks MUCH better and the F5 in my opinion is TWICE the quality of the FS7. We did some tests with an external recorder and one of the shots in the final project is Pro Res origination. Honestly, it was the worst looking of the shots, don't know why, but it needed the most work and has the most noise. Not sure if the HDMI output is noisy or not, but perhaps it is. Honestly it really depends on how you shoot it, that's going to be the key. I've done quite a bit of A7SMKII work recently for one of my clients and in certain limited dynamic range situations, the camera looks OK. Where it fails in my view is it's lack of dynamic range and it's just not very colorful. Almost all of my corrections include heavy saturation gains, even on top of the LUT. The color science of the F5 is MUCH better, it's a very good looking camera. I've colored lots of F5 material, most of it recorded in Pro Res and even when you underexpose, you can get something out of it. Over exposing on ANY Sony camera is death to your shot, they have very little tolerance compared to the more "cinema" specific cameras like the Alexa SXS and Red Dragon. I personally don't think you can match'em very well, even if you use the same glass.

More and more, people are reverting back to separate system sound, thanks to the advent of lower-cost external recorders. In fact, every single show I've been on this year has been double system sound, first time in my entire career. I'm a huge advocate of single system sound, but it appears the market is changing again. When I refer to "run and gun" I'm using using it as a general term that refers to a single camera unit, which is easy for one person to use. I also like to use the term "ENG" because originally the "all in one" camera was designed for that purpose and to this day, the external basic design hasn't varied much. Yes, manufacturers put their own personal touches on the cameras, but anyone who picks up a different brand's camera, should be able to make it work quick, unlike today's cinema cameras, which are so heavily menu driven. I also do think, if you're spending money on a real production, you'd better make it for a 70ft screen because that's where things are headed, that's what netflix delivery is already requesting. They already have higher standards then our cinemas!

It is when you add the extension box to the back, which I feel is critical to making that camera look decent, thanks to the addition of "proper" codec's. I mean lets face it, the only people buying camera's with XLR inputs, built in filter wheel and extremely limited MPEG recording, are people doing run and gun productions, which is in the same world as ENG in my opinion. The FS7 works fine with static talking heads and running around in a war zone, neither one of which is being blown up to a 70+ ft wide screen. "Cinema" cameras are an entirely different animal. Some cameras like the F5 and F55, are a hybrid between ENG and Cinema. However, when you shoot "cinema" you really need RAW or extremely high quality, full bandwidth recording, like Pro Res XQ as mostly all products made for cinema are heavily manipulated in post and need that bandwidth. Coloring the FS7 and C300MKII stuff (with native codecs) is a lesson in futility. Might as well be wearing a straight jacket and coloring with my nose.

Storyboards are great if you're an artist. If you aren't, then it's almost better to have extremely detailed notes of each shot so when you get to set, you understand how things are going to flow.

Yea, I'd totally do the Sorkin class. Tho I have a feeling, the level of education is probably low. Nobody is going to give away their trade secrets.

The FS7 is a fine ENG camera for 1080p broadcast stuff. It's just not very good outside of that world. It's a swiss army knife that does everything, but nothing very well. Even with the RAW/Pro Res board, it's still pretty noisy and has all the standard Sony highlight clipping issues. Having just shot two pretty large projects back to back, one on the C300MKII and one on the FS7 with Pro Res board, I vastly prefer the C300MKII. It has a superior image, uses standard CF cards, doesn't destroy batteries and is a lot smaller. The FS7 is a better ENG camera, but for narrative, the C300MKII beats it, even with iFrame MPEG capture.

What kills me about Canon is they have pretty good color science and excellent imagers. Yet they're hindered by poor electronics, mid-grade codec's and over-all poor design. Personally, I'd rather have 2/3" 3xCCD camera with a B4 mount, all the codecs in the world in a big box that goes on your shoulder, then a design that failed in the film camera days (holding the camera in front of you), with all the issues talked about above.

Right, but there are FAR better 1080P cameras.

Canon still hasn't woken up to the fact, they're not good at making video cameras. Everything they make that shoots moving images, is substandard in one regard, all the way back to their first video cameras. They always skimp on something critical and it leaves their cameras lacking compared to the competition. It's true that all cameras within the consumer price bracket, must skimp on something. Yet, the 30 some odd years Canon has been making consumer video cameras, they haven't yet learned what's important. What frustrates me is that Canon is willing to re-tool the entire factory to make a new body, which is an astronomical cost. Yet, they are unwilling to use a better processor, constantly resorting to their own in-house Digic processor, which I've always disliked. Canon has purposely crippled this new cameras abilities so people will be pushed towards the super expensive and ultra-useless MPEG disaster C series. I understand if Canon had a phenomenal video camera and didn't want to share technology. They simply don't have that, so the underwhelming C series is considered the highest tech they have, so the still cameras must have "worse" tech. So now, they push out yet another camera that's still 3 years behind its competitors on the video side. Heck, it's even behind on the still side, 30MP is nothing in todays word.

Ok cool, yea sounds like your plan is solid. I always run an AC on my film shoots because it's nice to have someone clean stuff, load magazines and do the camera logs. So where a 3rd camera is nice to have, I'll just throw a competent AC on it. This gives them some seat time and I've found the AC's I've worked with, do a pretty good job operating because it's usually where they want to be, so they take extra care. So if you do have an AC, that's a good place to put them, on those occasions where a 3rd camera is necessary. Otherwise, like you said, run 2 cameras most of the time. As the cinematographer, it's nice to be looking through the critical lens at all times on a film shoot.

I don't think the freezer "adds" worthwhile time. I've been storing film in the refrigerator for years and it's never been a problem.

I assume you're talking S16 eh? What does the script call for? Exteriors? practical interiors? Set's? Also 60 pages for a TV pilot? That's quite a lot. Most made-for-tv shows will be around 40 pages. Even cable/internet TV will be less then 60 pages. I think your prep idea of 60x3 is good because as you said, you wont be using the 3rd camera all the time. I spent years doing multicamera television shoots. It's pretty easy to manage two cameras, but the third can be sometimes difficult, mostly due to finding a decent shot. I like having a good master wide, but you don't need to shoot every take with the 3rd camera.

Unions are great, but they just don't work because producers are able to circumvent them. Also, you can blacklist a producer all you want, if they have private funding sources, they can always sucker someone to work on their productions. Today's union's are an expensive insurance policy for top industry people who are constantly working and get paid well. If you aren't a top person and you're in the union, you're probably struggling to make it all work. As a freelancer, union's are great protection, but they're a hassle for the production and that can lead to less work.

Company to individual is usually more then 30 days and most of the time around 90. Company to company is generally a lot higher, I've seen net 120 become the new standard for those kinds of transactions. From my 25 years of experience, getting paid today is harder then it's ever been. Production companies leverage money to make a better product and usually the reason you haven't been paid is because they don't have the money. They'll make excuses, but the end result is the money they owe you, they physically don't have. Legal documents don't mean squat if the person who owes you money, doesn't have the money. Plus, "smart" people build LLC's for each production and have deal memo's which don't accurately define "payment". Gullible crew sign on without really asking too much because they're scared they won't get the work if they do. There are plenty of good people who don't ask questions and just do the work. Small claims court costs YOU money and in a lot of cases, even if you sue and win (which is hard/expensive) there are no guarantee's they will pay. It could be strung out for months and years before you gain any traction as the court system is very slow. Plus, being out of state is a deal killer, there is very little you can do. I've been involved in several lawsuits friends have made to out of state companies, trying to help them build their case and every one of those cases was dropped because it would have cost them more then it was worth. Remember, time is money and every second your not working, is money you're loosing. In the end, you will grow as a cinematographer not just creatively, but also with business practices. You will learn to only accept jobs that have a known production company association not just fly by night LLC's. You'll also ask for some kind of payment up front to start the job. This will help pad issues on the back end. You've just gotta be ready to get screwed on every job and have the next one lined up ready to go, so you can cut losses.

I'm in charge of a large archival library of 16 and 35mm from a documentary filmmaker who shot film in Los Angeles from the late 60's into the mid 90's. I've been through every roll of film, including the original camera negatives and positives as he shot a lot of ECO. None of the material has been stored properly, most has been sitting in a very hot garage for 20+ years. Most of the films are in good shape, no sticking and very little color fading. However, there are the occasional reels that stick together and smell like chemicals. Not quite vinegar syndrome, but borderline. I've carefully unreeled some of those stuck reels and they're mostly prints, rather then camera originals. They don't have any visual damage but the stickiness can be directly associated to poor cleaning. I'm lucky that almost all of the original camera negative and positives are kept in boxes and not can's. It seems anything that's in a can is in worse shape then the stuff in boxes. In my experience, it seems the lab's don't treat prints with the same care as original negative. The print machines can move a lot faster and that's maybe why some of the prints in my archive aren't good. I assume since Kodachrome Super 8 processing was done very fast, those machines didn't leave the film in the wash or drying area for quite as long. This is why perhaps, we're seeing issues with washing on home movie's (mailed in super 8) and why I'm seeing sticky syndrome on prints. Again, I'd say 95% of my archive is excellent. His oldest movie, shot in the late 60's on B&W reversal, is perfect. His first color documentary from 74' is also perfect, both the A/B ECO, internegative and prints, all of them are flat out perfect and feel like they were wound onto the core yesterday. I personally don't know how re-washing film at home will be a positive thing. Lab's are pretty clean and the film is at no time completely exposed to un-filtered outside air. So all a post wash at home will do is add dirt to the image. I've been a technical consultant on a few films recently, helping people shoot their projects on film. I'm finally starting to see dailies and even on the Agfachrome super 8 project, there isn't a single ounce of dirt or particulates, thanks to excellent lab work. I'm sorry, but you can't get that level of cleanliness working at home, unless you have a dust-free clean room. Yes, you can build a special lab at home if you want, processing 50ft at a time. I just don't see how that's economically viable. The positive to processing at home is cost of chemicals, but everything else is a negative from TIME to expense of building out an appropriate location in order to keep your film looking good. Now if you don't care about the clean look, if you're an "art" person who is more interested in scratch/damaged film, then yes you would not ever want to use a lab. Most of us however, we care about the quality of our output and since we're talking about Super 8, where all of this matters the most, it's almost a moot point. This is why processing 35mm stills at home, does deliver acceptable quality. The negative is so large, the dirt/dust particles don't really make a difference. With Super 8, it's a much bigger problem and so are things like scratching.

Xavier, Visual Products has these cameras in stock all the time. Just shoot them a call. http://visualproducts.com/

When Sony discontinued the 1" format, they told retailers to literally throw the machines into the dumpster. When Buell went out of business, dealers were ordered to throw bikes into dumpsters. When DeLuxe and Technicolor went out of business, they threw millions of dollars worth of one-off custom equipment into the dumpster, including two of the ONLY modern 70mm flatbeds ever made and the last two high-speed duplicators. I have a friend who witnessed the whole thing and it was a scary experience. Companies do things not for logical reasons, but for financial. If you have a million dollars of worthless property, if you have insurance, you can destroy it and get some insurance money. If you keep it, then you may continue to loose money. This mentality is what has driven the "business" world for decades, maybe even longer. Since we live in a highly dependent world, where people rely on manufacturers to deliver them goods, they just assume those manufacturers care about the customer and honestly, they don't. In most cases, all they care about is getting your money and if they can't do that, they go out of business. I have one more story... It's about a steam ship called the SS Nobska, based in Woods Hole MA. It was the LAST steel plated coastal steam ship on the north east, eventually becoming the last one in the whole country once the SS Catalina lost funding and sunk. A group of conservationists saved the Nobska from certain destruction and raised millions of dollars to get it refurbished. However, they were such greedy pigs, they were only it it for the money and the ship was eventually scrapped after only three years. They claimed to have run out of money, but that was a bullshit cover-up because the government offered them a grant and they declined. Pretty much a similar story with the SS Catalina, a very sad story of destruction and corruption. Plain and simple... People are mostly driven by money these days and it's sad.

I reckon so

Well, its got a much bigger imager then a GoPro, so in that sense it's already one step above. I haven't seen anything shot with it, but most of these Chinese knock off cameras are crap. They don't have the proprietary software that real companies use to drive the imager. Plus, they're all using a very similar h264 encoder which is already 10 years old. It's kinda too bad, none of the cheap Chinese camera companies have really developed a decent solution. There have been a few tries, but all of them have been a failure in one way or another. Mostly due to marketing and poor professional support. At least Canon's 4:2:0 8 bit cameras were bitchin' still cameras, so the "video" portion was only a feature, rather then the cameras main function like the E1.

It's a real shame, I hope people who are local/close to these guys can start making some negotiations on camera parts.