Tyler Purcell

I can't imagine shooting a documentary in Raw. I'm working on one right now shot in 4k MPEG 410Mbps and it's 22TB worth of media. If that were ALL raw, it would be upwards of 50TB. The cost and organizing of that much media is insane, literally insane. Even at Pro Res HQ 220, which is where I shoot most of my doc work, the storage is crazy. RAW also should be transcoded before editing. SO now your adding another layer of complexity to the project. I generally want to come home from a shoot, copy the media and start editing right away.

Again, the great thing about the Pocket is the ability to run any glass you want. Unlike a full-frame imager which can ONLY use full-frame glass, the Pocket can use literally anything from B4 mount TV zoom lenses, to a Bolex C mount prime. The imager size is almost identical to that of the Sony F900 and of course, the same size as S16mm. So we're not talking about something "unusual". If anything, S35mm imagers are FAR more unusual as there are only a hand-full of cameras with that size imager and coverage for such a format wasn't really a thing until the 90's. So older/wider glass, won't work well on such a big imager. Modern glass, has a modern look. It's crisp and most of the affordable glass doesn't have external non-clicked F stop control, repeatable focus and zooms are RARELY Parfocal, which means they hold focus when you zoom in and out. I just did a shoot with a $2500 L series Canon zoom and when I zoomed in to get focus and zoom out, I had to re-focus. This is the same with almost all modern DSLR glass. By contrast my $1000 Super 16mm zoom IS completely manual, is a 12-120 (which is plenty wide/long enough) and is F2.4, which is faster then MOST modern DSLR glass of equal value. I'm always shocked to see DSLR zooms which start at F4, it's bonkers to think how cheap those lenses are. So your only choice with a S35mm imager is DSLR glass designed specifically for still cameras OR large-imager cinema glass, which is VERY expensive since the demand is high and the amount of DECENT inexpensive glass out there, is pretty low. Most rental houses are simply holding onto their softer/older glass because digital cameras are so sharp, many filmmakers have resorted to using older glass to smoothen things out. To get a truly great cinematic image on a digital cinema camera, really requires not only a decent imager, but it also requires a piece of glass that just looks amazing. The GH4 (or A7SMKII for that matter) don't offer RAW in any shape or form. So you are stuck with a standard REC709 output no matter what. Yes, both cameras can output a "log/flat" version of the image, but you are always going to work in REC709 color space, which is very limited. You don't NEED RAW for everything, just every once in a while. Shooting most of your footage using the built-in 10 bit 422 Pro Res encoder in flat/film mode, is what you'd do 90% of the time. Then for those specific shots you need RAW OR if you wish to learn about how to color using RAW files, that's when you make the switch. To me, RAW is a critical learning experience because it opens the cameras ability to capture higher dynamic range material 10 fold over a flat REC709 file. Even if you forget about RAW and only shoot REC709, the GH4 and A7SMKII have an 8 bit processor. Yes, they both have outputs which are standard HDSDI which is a 10 bit 422 format. BUT, the internal processing is done in 8 bits, vs 12 bit with the Blackmagic Pocket camera. This is why the GH4 and A7SMKII can record high frame rates, because they're both recording FAR less data then the pocket camera which is running at it's max potential almost all the time. They also both have low-bandwidth Long GOP MPEG compression, which is atrocious. Adding an external recorder adds complexity, expense, weight, size and more importantly, doesn't "solve" any of the problems as both cameras are still internally, only 8 bit. It's the same with all of the small hand-held cameras on the market. Only Blackmagic have stepped away and said, hey lets do something totally different. Now, these are all OK cameras. However, AS a professional cinematographer and AS someone who owns both 35mm and 16mm glass (and cameras for that matter), AS someone whose shot with almost every camera on the market today from the Arri Alexa and Red Dragon to the C300MKII and URSA mini 4.6k, I can attest to how flat-out MAGICAL the pocket camera is. It looks NOTHING like the Full-Frame imager cameras and for better or worse, thats what you want in reality. Separating your work from what everyone else is doing is one way to attract people to your work. You do need good glass though, that's the biggest factor in my view. It doesn't get much smaller/portable and FULLY MANUAL then this:

Absolutely Jay! Nobody is willing to give anything away so far, but I need to go meet these people and see what they can offer, if anything. One thing I've learned about hollywood... they want money over anything else. Finding equipment donations is nearly impossible, even from people who throw stuff away, they'd rather it be in a trash can, then in the hands of someone who can use it. :(

Yea I know there were a bunch of "attempts" to make this happen. What kills me is that you COULD use optics to fix the problem with the flange distance issues.

If you JUST like cameras, you MAY be able to find FREE internship work at a rental house.

Yea, but we all love you. :P I get the drift tho and I get sick of it when I see people all dressed and groomed in what I call the "California Producer" style. It just pisses me off and makes me want to wear board shorts, tank top and no shoes to production meetings. I'll say this much, I'm a T-shirt and jeans guy and it absolutely makes it harder to work in Hollywood. People just don't take you as serious unless you dress like a god damn idiot. P.S. I've shown up to a production meeting at a clients house on my Ducati Superbike wearing a full track suit. They didn't realize the canyon road they live on was one of the best in L.A. and I had been riding up and down it for an hour before the meeting! I wound up getting the gig, tho it wound up falling apart in prepro and never amounting to anything. I blame it on their fancy clothes, they should have spent money on making the show better, rather then their wardrobe, fancy house and fancy car. :( I've actually been hired many times for being a motorcycle rider and wearing the right gear to meetings. It's one of those strange things, a lot of top industry people are themselves ex or current riders, so they understand the kind of mentality it takes to ride a bike around L.A. and it clues them in on who you are. It's those kind of connections which form an early bond between people. It doesn't matter WHAT you look like, if you share a common interest and can explore that sharing without even saying a word, then you could be a trout and it wouldn't matter. Sometimes I've lost jobs thanks to the motorcycle thing, but hey, I ride bikes and that's who I am. If they don't like it, well... I ain't buyin' a car! :)

Ohh Phil, you need to remember you're from England. :) Also, you don't look bad mate, stop getting depressed! As I always say, if someone doesn't like the way you look, phuck'em! :P

Most PA's (production assistants/runner) on bigger shows, work in their own little world. They rarely have access to set (outside of cleaning it after everyone has left) and the people on set. PA's generally sit in a holding pen until called upon and they generally don't even share the same catering, so the chance to intermingle is low. On the feature I just worked on, we had two set PA's, one of them was the executive producers son. He was free to move around and talk to anyone, but he was so busy, he didn't have any time to really mingle. That was on a ultra low budget movie, shot with mid grade cameras and DSLR lenses. Stuff you can shoot with on your own. Heck, I worked as an industry rep/engineer for a few years and was on film sets constantly. I had a few fun moments with the camera department, including going to rental house and going through the camera package. I didn't NEED to be there, but they let me in and we had fun. Did I learn anything? Not really. Have I ever communicated with those people since? Absolutely not. It was cool to be there, but that was the only real positive to take home. Moral of the story; even with great access, learning something valuable, something worth your time/effort, can be tricky. The funny thing about being a PA is; most of the other PA's, have the same ambition and goals you do. So you COULD be part of a little community and work on their projects when the big movie shoot is done. I know a lot of PA's and they can be a pretty tight nit community, going from film to film together, making $125-$150/per 12hr shift. I know Richards response was harsh, but he is absolutely correct. What he means by high school work is the low-complexity of the PA position, he isn't referring to you. He's having a laugh at your expense because what your asking for is the holy grail; Getting time on a major feature, being near the camera department and trying to learn things. The problem is, most films are crewed through nepotism, which means the crew is hired based on their previous record with other members of the crew. So for instance, a unit production manager will be hired and they will bring on THEIR crew. So even if it's a low-budget movie, getting in the door without any IMDB page to prove experience and/or already having seriously good connections on set, can be tricky. Yea, I know... I'm a film guy as well. But I spent 3 years interning and 8 years working in the broadcast industry. Why? Because the techniques I learned, people I met and credits I earned, were invaluable for the future. I know that seems like a long time and I was very lucky during my childhood to get that work, but the access I had was unparalleled. During college, I interned for a production company who eventually hired me to be their assistant camera operator. Eventually I became operator on the B camera and shot a whole bunch of 16mm and 35mm commercials. I also edited several projects for broadcast television during the same time. All of that work came from working in the television industry and without that experience, I'd be nowhere today. I know how exciting being on a real hollywood movie set can be, but without knowing someone very high up on the food chain who can walk you around and show you things, there is no way to get the access you want. I know a lot of people and if I wanted access to one of their sets, they would struggle to get me in. Big movies are far worse, it's a constant battle because they don't want the risk of people being able to snap picts with their phones you know? It's all about securing their "property" at that point, so they need to trust the crew in a way that TV doesn't. Anyway, that's the story and I know its not what you wanna hear, but them's the breaks! I personally would get an internship on a show which is on a lot. This way you can walk around during your lunch break and check out the other productions being made, maybe you'll get lucky and have a few undisturbed minutes near the set entrance checking out a movie being made from a distance. If your sole goal is to be close to a film set, that's probably your best bet. Otherwise, working on television series, will give you plenty of experience. Most series are shot like a feature film anyway.

Well, internships are kind of tricky in the world of production. Most interns are in the office, or as set PA's. Nobody is going to give you an internship in the camera department, it just doesn't happen. Remember something very critical about moviemaking; speed is a huge factor. So if you're dragging along an intern, you are slowing down the production. Heck, bigger shows don't even hire non-experienced set PA's. They don't want people who call back and ask how much moca creme XYZ producer wants in their coffee, they already know that stuff. You can however, intern with television production, that's a very common thing to do. All the major networks offer internship programs and even though you won't be able to physically touch a camera due to union rules, you can absolutely hang out with and learn from the camera people. Would it help your career? Probably not. I interned at several broadcast news outlets during my youth and was dismayed with how hands off it was. The union guys controlled everything and it really sucked. It's no different on a film set, you ain' getting NEAR a camera on a real production. You'd be lucky to see a monitor feed, let alone a camera.

Eye, that's what I figured... :(

Riddle me this, why can't you make an imager where each pixel is red blue and green? Simply divide it just like LED displays do, where the pixels are divided by thirds like a pie.

But here is what I don't get... why can't you use a optical piece like what a speed booster does?

I didn't know about the beam splitter issue and limiting the optics. Is there a diagram somewhere to explain this phenomena?

I was having a heated debate with a colleague a few months ago about why the industry doesn't use three CMOS imagers (one for each color) and a beam splitter like CCD cameras do. This would solve many of the issues CMOS cameras have and deliver far greater color detail. My point is that bean splitters reduce the amount of light hitting the imager and that adding two more imagers would be cost prohibitive, make the cameras larger and require a lot more processing power (expense/weight/heat dissipation). His point is that nobody cares about cost and size, they'd still be smaller then an average 35mm film camera, electronics pricing is going down, so the cost for the added parts shouldn't be that much. Plus, it would be true RGB instead of this faux stuff we deal with today. I mean there have been a few cameras made this way, but nothing in the 4k variety that currently exists. What bothers me the most about this concept/conversation is that, people simply don't care. Nobody does anything about it because what we have now is "good enough". People are focused on higher resolution and not necessarily solving some of these technical issues. Anyway, I'd like to know what people think about the idea of a S35 sized, 3 CMOS imager camera and if it would be worth developing at this juncture.

Generally a flat scan doesn't have that high of mid's lifted, but it really depends on the log curve.

I grew up right on the cusp of the technology boom in the 80's. So I saw the first real video games hit the household, I saw how kids stopped playing outside and started sitting in front of the television thanks to video games. When the internet hit in the mid to late 90's, that sealed the deal, once you can get everything at the touch of your finger, you don't need to research or find anything on your own. Today, kids have their noses buried in phones and online almost every waking moment. This feature I just finished was an all-kid cast and the only times they weren't on their phones, was during a take. The moment the director yelled cut, the phones came out and they were back to being in their separate little worlds. That's the generation the studio's are marketing to and unfortunately, its our future, for better or worse. Sure, I do live in Los Angeles, a place where this "problem" is a bit out of control. However, it's a systemic problem in this and other countries around the globe. It's the lack of imagination, why do kids need to imagine anything when the computer does it for them? Kids don't read comic books, they don't need to.

It's all up to the audience and to get that audience requires a lot of money in marketing/publicity. There is a huge risk to market something that may not sell, so studio's tend to make products with as little risk as possible. Again, the reason we have the movies we have, is because there is a group of people, sitting in a basement, doing market research which is sold to the studio's. That research determines what the studio's will make, not what scripts filmmakers have in their back pockets. In the past, writers would work under contract for the studio's to write whatever the studio wanted, but it wasn't based on market research, it was generally based on whatever another studio was releasing. Sure, intermixed with that were the one-off bought scripts and projects, but those are becoming more and more rare. We had a boom in the mid 2000's before the financial crisis, the sub 10M movie was king and today, it's more like $250k and you can't really make a good movie for $250k. So sure, there are some small independent SciFi movies, but with $16 movie tickets, people would rather see poop blow up, then see something truly worth thinking about. I mean, I saw Batman V Superman because I wanted to see how good the 70mm print/projection was. I paid full boat for it and was happy to see good film projection and the movie met all my expectations as I walked into it expecting utter crap and it was. Honestly, I love the SciFi genre, but outside of perhaps 5 films, the last decade has been void of anything really good. There have been films that border the SciFi world, but none that I would consider TRUE SciFi. For me, SciFi needs to have a bunch of nerd rants, like 'Interstellar'. I also personally don't like space movies that break all the rules like 'The Martian' with their HUGE space ship, with big glass windows. Please, give me a break, they'd all be dead. At least Nolan knows these things and hires designers to make sure they're right. All of the sets from 'Interstellar' were scientifically proven by professionals and looked very realistic/functional. For sure not perfect, for sure a little bit of design leeway, but not something that stands out. Again, nerds want to see that stuff done right and honestly, there are millions of nerds out there, all wanting to see whatever nerd film comes around next. Right now they're watching 'Star Wars', but if someone were to start a NEW space opera... the sky's the limit!

Well, if the next genre is video games, I'll take superhero's any day of the week. I won't see either anyway. :sad:

Right, but whose editing, storing and distributing 4k? If you're shooting a feature that's destine for theatrical release, you wouldn't use any of these cameras anyway. So most of it is just having fun, playing around anyway. I say forget 4k, forget that horrible workflow and huge storage, just focus on shooting.

I don't think Warcraft is going to do well in the box office. I know the other video game movies haven't done too well, so I can't see that becoming a trend like the comic book movies have.

I truly detest pretty much everything coming out of hollywood today. The predictable committee written scripts, the gloss and over-use of visual effects, they've turned cinema into computer games. The SciFi genre is pretty much dead in the cinema. All of the film that WOULD have been SciFi turn into fantasy because evidently people want to see completely unrealistic things at the cinema. The Martian was one movie that tried to be something different, but in my view it failed. For all the great science "fun" in my eyes it was a failure because the filmmakers went over-board on their designs and CG world. If you're gonna make an intelligent SciFi movie, don't fill it with dumb stuff that SMART people will point out as being obviously wrong. This is why I love big dumb action films, because nothing really matters. Series like Lethal Weapon and Beverly Hills cop. These were films that were written well, had excellent cast and were pretty low budget compared to todays standard. Yet they had no problem getting my attention without resorting to heavy visual effects and unrealistic stories about demigods. I thought Interstellar was one of the best SciFi films made. People complain because it's dramatic story was a bit weak (the film was too long and they cut it down) and the ending didn't make sense to others (it did to me). I mean I've seen the film ohh... maybe 20 times now and I don't see how anyone could complain. It has all sorts of legitimate science bits, written by professional's about something, we don't really understand yet. It all made "sense" without introducing elements that are down-right stupid. Yet, it didn't do well in the box office, it was Nolan's first movie to not triple it's budget in profit domestically. I don't think it was the cast either, I think people just aren't interested in exploration and science, they don't want to think, they want to shut off their brains. Teenagers are still the biggest demographic of people going to the cinema. Do you a think a modern teenager would "get" Interstellar? HA! So do we need more SciFi? Yes! But we need more "inexpensive", not visual effects driven stuff, like Star Trek. More "on the ship sciency" stuff, if that's a word.

Blackmagic cinema camera, I'd hazard a guess 2.5k since it doesn't have the same field of view you get with a Super 35mm imager. THe areal stuff is gopro There is some night stuff that looks mysteriously like a different camera. I'd say some sort of small sony like an A7S. The lenses weren't very good, probably old SLR/DSLR lenses my guess is.

You shattered the glass? If there is too much temperature differential it will absolutely shatter. I've always made it a habit to open windows I shine light through.

A trailer should tell a story not highlight cool shots. You say it's a comedy so where are the funny bits? Think of it from an outsiders perspective... Why am I watching this trailer? Is it interesting, does it keep me engaged, do I want to see more? Now I've been cutting trailers for years so I know more then your average bear. However that being said, it's hard to make a killer trailer and a lot of times as I'm writing a script I'm sculpting the trailer. This why I know I've got those critical shots required for the trailer in camera and find them when the time is right. It goes back to the old rule of thumb when making a feature; get people interested in what you're making way before you make it. Not friends and family, but random strangers online. Make a conscious effort to get as many people interested in what you have to offer as you can. This why when it comes time for selling, you already have people anxious to see the finished product. Make sense?

Congratulations on making it through the first step of the process; you now have a sellable asset! :) Well, first thing you need is an actual trailer. If you can come up with a few quid, you should be able to find a professional trailer cutter who can do that for you. The trailer you posted here doesn't help your cause unfortunately. Once you have a good trailer, it will be a lot easier to get people excited.