Tyler Purcell

Yea it did look pretty good. The flicker is very strange because it's inconsistent. The one thing that seemed strange is the gate wobble, it had LOTS of it, more then it should. Outside of a light leak and light bouncing around between the shutter and lens, I don't know what else can cause that issue since it doesn't seem to be consistent.

And you can't just market yourself as an AC or Electrician without a resume and you can't BUILD that resume without having worked for quite a while. It's one thing to be a PA for the Grip/Electric department. Its another to get on a gig as position you never trained for. The OP asked: "Anything you wish you would have known when starting out as a DP?" I wish I had known it takes years to work up the food chain (get onto bigger shows) with ANY position on a film set, let alone a DP. I always thought DP's made a good rate and if you were good, had something on your resume to show it, then you'd be able to secure jobs. The problem is, securing jobs means you have to know people, you don't apply on a job board and get a job. Almost all jobs are through nepotism, someone knows you and they need a DP, so they ask if you're available, simple as that. I came to Los Angeles in 2002, did two feature films back to back as a DP, got screwed on both of them, ran out of money and had to sell all my gear in order to live and get a full-time job. So I lost my ability to shoot stuff and make money as a DP, all because some stupid producers couldn't figure out their budgets. It took me 10 years of meeting the right people to finally secure enough freelance work to make ends meet. During those 10 years, I had normal jobs and slowly fine tuned my craft, though at that point, it was in the department of editing and story telling. All of that to say; had I started my career by making money and putting that money towards buying decent equipment and making a resume FIRST, that would have helped greatly. Being able to DONATE your time and work on small projects to build that resume, can be critical. If you keep shooting and work with like-minded individuals, you will eventually get fed some work. It maybe pitons, but it doesn't matter because your bills are covered by your full-time job. When you've got enough cash saved up, a decent equipment haul and some lined up gigs, you can quit your job and start being a real cinematographer or any other position. That's one of two ways to go, the other way is to get a gig as a set PA and prey you can work up the ladder. That way DOES work for some people, but others get frustrated and quit because they don't have enough time to do anything else but be on set. The great thing about a 9-5 is that, you've got plenty of time to work on other projects when you get home from work. When you're a freelancer, you can't step away from your work, I never have the time to do personal projects because I'm so busy with paid projects. So that's why I suggest for cinematographers, to take the path of least resistance (get a job, make money and fine tune your craft on your spare time), rather then wasting your time as a PA.

I use a monopod. Fits right onto the side of my backpack and works perfectly.

A final cut of a movie will be sent via EDL/AAF/XML to a finisher, who will bring the cut selects of the original high resolution media online and color them. Visual effects shots and graphic elements will then be put into the finishers timeline with the final cut and everything will be colored to match. They will then export as EXR or DPX for the DCP (digital cinema package) version. Then they will generally make a home video version right then and there, exporting as Pro Res XQ in most cases and handing that over for the BluRay release. Most of the time, audio will be delivered AFTER the coloring is done. The two will be mated either during the coloring phase (for stereo reference) before export OR in most cases, added later during the "encoding" process of either the DCP or MPEG files for BluRay. Most of the finishing tools on the market can handle multi-track exporting, but none of them can encode the proper Dolby/DTS soundtrack for theatrical/BluRay release. So this is why audio is generally not touched by the finisher and only associated during the coloring process as "reference". Another thing that happens quite a bit today is the DIT (digital image technician) on set, will set LUT's and sometimes even color shots that are going to VFX. So on modern digital shoots, there is always someone's hand on the files before they're touched by the colorist. Outside of the DIT, this workflow is pretty much standard practice for film and digital acquisition when projecting digitally.

Yep, if you can shoot 12 bit 444 Pro Res, you are not only saving a great deal of space (Arri Raw is huge), but also time because you need to convert Arricode to Pro Res or DNX (the two industry standards)to edit. With RED cameras, most people shoot Red Code instead of Pro Res, mainly because it looks better then the Pro Res output which is built into the cameras. Until RED records 12 bit Pro Res 444 XQ, this will be a small issue. I personally shoot everything in Pro Res because I absolutely hate transcoding before I can watch anything. I'm in the middle of post hell because someone decided to shoot in a codec that's not native to my editor, so I had to transcode both shows, just because of codec issues. When you deal with raw, it's the same problem. Now, most of the lower-end cameras, don't shoot 12 bit 444 Pro Res XQ. In that case, shooting RAW will be your only option to get the imagers quality out of the camera and into your computer. Obviously, the camera's imager/processor makes the biggest difference when it comes to dynamic range and how it's colored in post. However, you really need to start with a 10 bit 4:2:2 i-Frame codec based file. Anything lower then that like 8 bit 4:2:0 or even 10 bit 4:2:0, will be harder to work with. I work on 10 bit 4:2:2 shows constantly and it's challenging to color compared to 12 bit 444 files, which are MUCH easier because there is so much more color space available and it doesn't degrade as much.

Welcome to the forum Tim. This question plagues the forum on a weekly basis. Everyone wants to know what camera they should buy because there are so many options today, it's hard to know what direction to go with. Truthfully there are four price brackets; (Sub $999. $3000 - $9999. 10,000 - $20,000. and 20,000 +) Since you are probably like most people and can't afford a $3000+ camera body, to then add $5000 worth of glass to, it makes sense to discuss the sub $999 cameras. In my experience, there are two types of cameras; swiss army knifes and single function. The lower-end cameras (like the A7S&GH4) are almost entirely like swiss army knives. They do a lot of things, but nothing truly outstanding. Almost all of them are still cameras that happen to also record video. As a consequence, they have to compromise, which really sucks. They are not only missing key cinema features, but record in archaic 8 bit, 4:2:0 MPEG formats, which aren't editing friendly. DSLR's fall under that same category unfortunately, as none of them have upgraded to the newer i-Frame style codec's and treat video as secondary to stills. The only lower-end camera that is single function and only shoots moving images is the blackmagic pocket cinema camera. Sure, it's 1080p, sure it has a small imager (equivalent to Super 16), but everything else about the camera focuses on one priority; making excellent cinematic images. As you learn how to work with cameras, there is certain terminology you will need to know and how that terminology effects your image. The Blackmagic cameras are the lowest price cameras which use the industry standard terminology. They have built-in histograms. They use shutter angle instead of shutter speed. ASA instead of ISO and have completely manual iris control. Plus, the cameras record in editing friendly Pro Res (10 bit 4:2:2) or (12 bit 4:4:4) Cinema DNG codec's, allowing a full 13 stops of dynamic range, which is impressive for a $998 camera retail. I also dig the cameras ability to use old school Super 16mm glass natively. It means you can score some great glass on ebay for not much money and get some excellent imagery, without resorting to modern glass, which can be overly sharp and have weak housings/bodies which are cheesy. As a teacher of cinema, I can't recommend the Pocket Cinema camera enough. I think every young filmmaker should buy one, buy old school manual glass and go make movies. It's a great learning tool and what you learn will translate very nicely into bigger more professional cameras down the road. When you come on here and talk about your shooting, you'll be using terminology that we all understand because the camera is designed around the professional cinema shooting world. Unfortunately, there isn't another camera on the market like it. Everyone feels the swiss army knife design is more important then a single task camera. Below is a little video I made about the pocket almost three years ago when it first came out. It needs a bit of updating (which I will do soon), but you'll get the point. :)

Get a real job, take that money and make stuff for fun on your own. :)

So the next question is; who will be seeing your videos? What is the highest form of distribution (if any) do you expect?

Well, you don't really know unless you're in the menu checking out what the camera is set for. The Alexa can down sample to 422 no problem and MOST monitors will accept 10 bit 422 as an HDSDI source, even when converted to HDSDI or DVI. It's only when dealing with 444 that things become really sticky.

Yea 1986 was a crazy year. http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/year/1986

Another thing that separates digital from film when it comes to a shutter is that film projection doesn't leave a still frame on the screen for 1/24th of a second, like digital. So there is more flicker that goes along with film projection that isn't present in capture. CMOS and CCD imagers pulse data down a bus to a processor, it's not a "direct" stream of information. All of the control on a digital camera is done POST the imager itself. We have zero control over the physical imager, unlike film where the imager is the film stock.

Most monitors are 1.5G 8 bit 422 and they can't accept 3G 10 bit 444. Having setup many post production facilities before, unless a monitor is advertised to accept 3G 444, it most likely doesn't. It's a totally different class of electronics necessary.

I agree with everyone else, it's smart to start with proper lighting. This includes a balanced image, nothing over or under exposed. Making the actors, especially their faces, perfectly exposed. No hard or harsh lighting in any shot, only soft/diffused lighting that should be minimalistic, only to help augment, rather then create a style. If you have a nice flat image, then when you color, it's a lot easier to define things. The key is to be very subtle with everything, both lighting AND coloring in post. Nothing you do should be noticed by the audience.

I was always told, during the film days, it was pretty typical to pick an F stop, ISO and light everything to it, trying hard to keep the same exposure throughout. It's a wise idea because it saves you a lot of time and aggravation in post. However with the digital workflows we have today, post is a pain no matter what you do. So it really doesn't make any difference if you constrict yourself, in fact I bet nobody will let you on a modern shoot.

I was pissed when Fincher and him split ways. Darius fit his work so nicely, but Fincher is hard to work with, so there may have been some issues. It surprised me when Darius started shooting Allen's stuff. It's such a departure from his darker work.

Basically, if you have business expenses to write off and make above the 2nd tier tax bracket every year, then it's worth having an LLC. If you don't have much to write off and you're not making much money, I wouldn't bother. Most industry professionals have their own LLC because they do make more then the 2nd tier tax bracket and they have a lot of write-off's that can't be done through personal tax returns.

Darius is brilliant, but more of an experimental and risk taker then most DP's. I thought his early stuff was brilliant, but as he's worked on bigger productions, it seems like they've tied his hands a bit, which has turned that unique look he once had, into a more normal hollywood look. I look at Delicatessen, City of Lost Children, Seven, Alien:Resurrection and Panic Room, those are just brilliantly photographed movies. I don't know what changed, but since then he's not quite been the same. The Woody Allen films do look good, but they're not typical Darius. I'm excited to see his new movie, The Lost City of Z.

When has WWDC been anything else but fluff anyway? I watch every year (this year I'm syncing audio, so why not have it on in the background) and very few things spark interest. When I was 12 I really liked computers, but as I got older, I started liking the old fashion way of doing things. So even though part of my life is supporting IT solutions for the broadcast and film industry in Hollywood, it's absolutely not my focus. I did like the new coding tools Apple has developed for their products. It's a smart way to get kids involved in coding on mac's, planting the seeds for tomorrow. Apple has had speech recognition (computer control) for 20 years now. I was using it in the late 90's and it worked pretty well. Adding Siri to the operating system has taken longer then anyone expected. However, I believe it was a strategic move, rather then a technical one. I believe they wanted people to buy mobile devices and focus on developing that market before bringing those features to the Mac OS. Apple's eventual goal is to ditch the Mac OS entirely and make the iOS and Mac OS the same product. It's true the iOS has continued to look the same since it's inception. However, that's what drives people to use it. They don't want ever changing interfaces, they want familiar and Apple has been doing just that. I think the iOS interface works great, it's nowhere near as complicated as the Android or Microsoft OS with all sorts of layers on each screen that one small mistouch of the display, causes things you don't want, to open up. If you're very precise with your movements, it works fine. However, we all know what it's like to use mobile devices one handed, precision goes out the door. Siri is pretty much worthless anyway, it can't do much of the things necessary. But yea, mostly all fluff and filler. The days of unique new products and software are long gone. It's probably why I don't care anymore, it's just not interesting.

Umm, aren't your kind of thing? He's shot in pretty much every genre, he's worked with some of the biggest directors, he's been nominated for 13 oscars and have won a myriad of other prizes for his achievement in the art of cinematography. You can't get as front and center in the world of modern cinematography without mentioning Roger Deakins. So yea, it's time to sit down and watch his movies. If all you did was watch the Coen Brothers one's, you'd most likely be entertained AND get a drift of how good he is. It's a lazy/cheap way to light a scene. It's not bad at all, in fact it's a good technique because it keeps the audience from peering out the windows. However, when you OVER use it like Kaminski does, it gets old fast. In my eyes, if the window is 6 stops over the actors exposure, it's a bit much.

Yea, it's not bad... but $6500 bux also buys 3 16mm cameras the students will be using all the time vs a demo I'd show them once a year. Even though I'd love to have a Mitchell BNC sitting in my living room (who wouldn't), it's a bit overkill. LOL :) My class includes 1920, 1940, 1960 and 1980 history in separate 2hr sessions. So I was going to start with a wind up camera for the 20's. See if I can track down (borrow) a 3 strip camera for the 40's. Mitchell BNC for the 60's and Arri BL for the 80's. I'll probably have to borrow for the time being. Though I wouldn't mind owning all 4 of those cameras AND an elephant ear VistaVision camera to boot! :D

Well it just finished... :) Umm, it was actually not bad this year. Lots of cool software updates which look like fun to play with. I really thought the programming tools towards the end were a breakthrough.

Ohh yea thanks Stuart. I should go up there and have a chat with them. :)

Well, how many students get the opportunity to work with such a famous camera in an old-fashion way of shooting? It gives so much more respect for the filmmakers of the period. I'd like them to assemble the camera as a group and perhaps shoot something with it. It's called hands on history, which is very important when educating minors. You can show them a picture, but when they're forced to use it, then they'll understand. In my course, the older equipment shows up later in the semester, so they will already have experience with smaller/newer cameras. When they see the boxes show up full of BNC, they'll freak out. I see BNC's for sale on ebay all the time, so there are many out there, I just don't think spending $7k on something I'm not going to be shooting with, is wise. But hey, if I have to buy something to teach the way I want, I'll have to do it! :) Ohh and the kids will have some experience with the BOLEX, but my class will be using SR's and LTR's for most of their shooting.

Nice music video, great material. This iplayerHD thing is cool, thanks for sharing! :)

Ohh brilliant, what a genius device! I never understood how that worked, but now I do! :) Thanks for posting David! Ohh and if you know of anyone with a BNC that's just sitting around, I really wanna shoot some stuff with one during my class. I think the kids would really get a kick out of assembling such a massive kit and learning how difficult it was to shoot back then.