Tyler Purcell

That particular picture is of a mitchell camera, which looks like a 3 strip body, but I can't quite tell. Yea IMDB says "Arriflex" cameras, but they were probably used for some hand held application. Remember, at that point, sync sound/quite cameras were in huge boxes. So when you see those hand held shots, those are not the standard studio cameras shooting them. I believe in the 60's, there were only two 400ft 35mm hand held cameras available; the Eclair CM3 and Arri IIB/C.

I totally feel your pain. Worst part is, everyone has their own slang for different connectors and cables as well. It's almost a sub-dialect, which makes it awfully confusing. I was just looking through my ASC and Camera assistant manuals, but neither one covers cables like that. Worst part is, Fischer, Hirose and Lemo, come in several styles. Good news is, only a few of them are used on film sets. SO IDK man, it's a great question! Lets see if anyone else has any ideas.

I saw it last night. Twasn't bad actually, pretty simple and workable plot I thought. Obviously, there were a lot of crazy things that were added for the sheer "wow" factor. I can see a bunch of people sitting in a room, throwing around ideas, not even contemplating anything related to actual science. I mean it's back to my beef with this new generation Star Trek, they've kinda removed the "science fiction" and added generic "action". Someone posted a video with a trekkie discussing the TNG movies and the 'NEW' trek movies. It was funny when the reviewer said, the TNG crew wasn't designed for action, which is right. IN my eyes, that's one of the reason's TNG was so great. It was really Science Fiction first and the crew was "out of place" in an action scene. Where this new 'trek' is all about taking huge risks, getting into fist fights, riding gas powered motorcycles and basically turning off all science realism, in favor of silly action scenes which are designed to WOW. So if you like 'wow' and 'pop' movies, this one does do a good job. It was entertaining all the way through, but it lacks the meaning of the other two movies. This one felt a little bit more shallow, like it could have been a single episode of TNG, rather then some big space epic. That aspect wasn't a bad thing, it was just unexpected. I also enjoyed it more then I expected, which was a good thing I guess. The trailers made the movie out to be pretty bad and the 4 editor credits, kinda proved they had some issues in post. I would have like to see what went wrong, what they needed to re-shoot(add) or cut out. I thought Justin Lin did an acceptable job, but his action scene direction style is very shaky cam and very close up, so you can't really see what's going on. This kinda helps so you can't identify who is fighting, but when the fight is between two people in heavy makeup, in my opinion, there is no excuse not to use serious stunt doubles and make a real fight scene out of it. Outside of that beef and the one's above, I thought it was assembled well enough, there didn't seem to be issues with the directing or even editing. So yea, if you're in the mood for space-based action this summer, it maybe worth the watch. Not saying it's a great movie, but it was entertaining, which is the whole point. :)

Are you referring to things like P-taps and Lemo's?

Hey Simon, what do you consider an "Arriflex 16" ? S/M, BL? The original SR I/II's have some stability issues for sure. The SR III's don't. I was always told the reasoning was the gate and how the edges moved in the later generations. I understand how the registration pin can be an issue, depending on the interior size of the perf varying. A more standard pulldown system, will only use the bottom edge of the perf for registration alignment, which is a far superior method in a lot of ways. What is your take on the "modern" SRIII's vs the original one's? Also in the case of the bolex, wear and tear is the largest factor for the cameras registration issues.

Gregg, what gives YOU the right to say any of that? It's comments like this, which drive people away, not opinions from an industry professional.

I understand your concern and appreciate you wanting to keep this place as "tidy" as possible. Unfortunately, that will never happen. It doesn't matter how much you jump up and down. It doesn't matter how many times people edit their posts. In the end, we are all posting on our spare time for fun. Mistakes happen and if we constantly dwell on them, if we constantly try to make everything we do or say perfect, there won't be time for anything else. I don't make grammar or spelling mistakes because I know better. I make them because I don't know better. I'm a product of the 21st century American public school system. I never learned my own language very well and honestly, neither have very many other people. So it's not like what you read here is just laziness, it's just not knowing. Once you've embedded poor skills, it's very hard to re-learn. I have tried numerous times, but have failed. In my eyes, if the point gets across, there is no reason to go any further. This forum is not an educational forum on the english language, we are artists and likewise, many of us have spent our lives focused on artistic things, instead of areas (like language) which perhaps, aren't so beneficial to perfect. Our language is visual and I'd rather focus on that, then be constantly berated about simple, unimportant things which have zero bearing on an opinion which is trying to be expressed. You should be thankful, younger people like myself, don't use slang on forums, because we sure as heck do on other internet services.

Stuart, your comments on this matter are unwelcome and unnecessary to the forum. Every single person on this forum (or internet for that matter) makes basic grammar and spelling mistakes, even you. There is nothing productive in point them out repeatedly, it makes you nothing more then a troll and bully, as your comments add noting to the topic at hand. I have tried to ignore you, but next time you derail a thread due to grammar issues, I will have no choice but to report you to the admin. That's how "educators" deal with bad students.

I have another option, just don't read my posts... how about that?

Untuned SR I/II are kinda loud. You've gotta really have perfection, especially when it comes to the magazine, for them to be anywhere near "silent". I remember the big problem with the CP was the magazine. Every one of them squeaked, you were constantly battling that. I have some CP16R demo footage I use on my flatbed and in the close/intimate scenes, you can here the "whirr" of the camera. The BL is a lot louder, I always had to put on a barney to quiet it down. Though I will admit, many scenes we just used a furniture pad or leather jacket. The SR3 is better, I have no idea what they did since it's so similar, but it's a lot quieter. Still I have yet to hear an older camera anywhere near the quietness of the XTR. Even my LTR is "silent" compared to a few of the SR's I've had here in the shop, right next to it on the same day.

The Bolex pulldown system is very unique because it can run forwards and backwards. It's kind of a compromised system in a lot of ways, even though it's pretty ingenious and mechanically works well. Dom hit on the key points... but the critical one that separates the Bolex from the modern Aaton/Arri cameras really comes down to that prism and viewfinder system. It's really hard to focus a Bolex to the level you can of the other, newer cameras. Having spent a great deal of time shooting with both wind up and electronic Bolex cameras, I've not been able to get the stability of the Aaton or Arri cameras. There is always a little bit of jitter, which can be corrected digitally. You just don't get that with the newer cameras. But to answer the question... the difference is really in the stability. The Aaton and Arri gates, pressure plates and pulldown systems are a lot better then the Bolex. That superiority is really what makes the rock stable images we're accustom to seeing from modern S16mm. So gate wobble and focus issues, would be the two deciding factors. Now that modern S16 cameras are so inexpensive, the benefits of the Bolex are becoming less and less. Which is too bad because they're still great little cameras.

There are two ways to go as a filmmaker... make "art" and maybe after 30 years of being broke, figure out how to bridge that gap between "mainstream" and "art". OR you can focus on easier/simpler ways to make "mainstream". Play the "mainstream" game and maybe after a few tries, you've got a career and then you can make anything you want. I live in Hollywood, you can't get more mainstream then this. If I lived in Europe, I'd absolutely think differently. Yet, the only thing that I think of on a regular basis is how people will see my movie, rather then IF they will see it. HOW is the big separation between "art" and "mainstream" because lets face it, the vast majority of "art" movies aren't seen by the public. Also, unlike painting or photographic art, the art cinema community is not as generous with their money. You can't make a product and expect a fan to buy into it. Mainstream products, for better or worse, target general audiences in a way, which if done properly, can be reciprocal. People fund low-budget projects they enjoy watching, which is the "new" crowd funding culture we see today. So yes I agree, you can make a modest and influential piece for low-budget, but who will see it? Your family? Your friends? A few people who accidentally click on it online or pick it up in the $4.99 bin at Walmart? Maybe all that matters is you accomplished something? Today, (thanks to digital technology) it's harder then ever for your little film to stand out in a crowd. As a filmmaker, your "job" isn't to make products anymore, it's to market what you plan on doing months, maybe even years before you do it. Build a fan base before you even know what you have and to do that, you've gotta have something people WANT to see. This is unfortunately the truth of the matter, whether you look at it from the perspective of a random viewer or a businessman investing in your product, it's really no different. All people want in the long run is to make money off YOUR product and if you do all the leg work for free, there is a good chance they may take a gamble on the audience you've built up.

Interesting, yea I'm a pretty big trekkie, haven't missed a "trek" movie in the theater since I was old enough to see them. Tho I will admit, I'm not a fan of the new series, it's at least entertaining popcorn fodder. I also got a discounted ticket from the BluRay of Wrath of Kahn, thanks to your review of the disk, one I throughly enjoyed. :) I'm kinda shocked they didn't do a "IMAX" 1.90:1 version. Cool beans, thanks for the reply! :)

This begs the question, was it worth seeing? Also, was it presented in 2.35:1 or did it fill the screen?

Do you mean people expect something that looks "filmic" when they watch a "movie"? If so, how does that relate to the financial debate.

And then coming out the pulldown claw hole?

Great news! Kinda of exactly what I'm doing here in the states! :)

What that outlaws and angels article points out, it something a lot of people don't discuss when doing a film v digital debate. It's expensive to make digital look like film. So if you WANT that filmic, non-digital look, all of a sudden you're spending quite a bit of money in labor time to create it in post, if you originate on digital. All of that post budget could be pushed towards originating on film and once you realize that good film camera packages are less expensive to rent then like digital packages, a lot of the "expense" of film starts to become a wash. As I've stated a few times on the forum, the price point where it makes sense to shoot film on a narrative feature of some length, is around 250 - 300k. Much under 250k and the cost of film starts to push a few critical things out of your budgets range. It absolutely can be done, but at that point you're either committing to a very short production schedule, very few locations, no major actors, low crew pay and very little money for post/distribution. The absolutely lowest bottom of the barrel 24 day budget (to allow for creative freedom on set) I've been able to build, even on S16, where people are being paid reasonably (so they don't feel abused, with $45k just for P&A, is around $410k. You can easily make a half million dollar movie on S35mm, very, very easily.

Ahh, yea that makes complete sense. I have two 16mm cameras for similar reasons. :)

Just a question... but why wouldn't you use the SR all the time? Is there something the CP16R does, that the SR doesn't do?

It's funny because so far this year I've done three Red shows. I've also done two I-Frame MPEG shows and of course, am constantly shooting with my Blackmagic cameras. So here I am in post, trying to make all of this material work. I had to invest in a Red Rocket card AND a decent graphics card to get the RED footage to work at all. Even with all of that, it's still not what I'd consider "editable", because the moment you add two or three layers, which is necessary when editing, it basically gums up the works. Red Code is designed for camera original and transcoding for editing. I-Frame MPEG (Sony/Canon) is a worthless codec that makes Red Code seem like a genius stroke. It's even harder to playback multiple streams then Red code! Even with faster graphics cards, there is no easy decode solution. Plus again, it's really a camera original only format. It's designed to be transcoded to an editing format. Then you have Pro Res... which is an editing codec. My same system that struggles through Red and I-Frame MPEG, can playback 4 streams of Pro Res XQ 4k no problem. That's because Pro Res doesn't rely on the speed of your computers bus or graphics card. It relies on how many threads your processors have and it gobbles up processor time. So whilst your editing software is hanging out on the GPU, the decoding of Pro Res is using your CPU. It's an extremely clever format that flat-out works for camera original and post production. Plus, Pro Res XQ does not follow any of the Rec 709 or 2020 standards, the codec lies outside of those standards. So you get far more dynamic range then you would in most other formats. Yes, Red Code has some unique benefits because it's RAW. But so does Cinema DNG, the "RAW" codec in the Blackmagic cameras. It doesn't require a fast graphics card to decode either. No, you can't work with Cinema DNG in real time outside of DaVinci, which sucks. However, it transcodes MUCH quicker then Red Code or even I-Frame MPEG for that matter. So you aren't wasting too much time with Cinema DNG. Also, having colored Red, Alexa, Blackmagic, Sony and Canon material, I can say without a doubt, the Blackmagic cameras are the easiest to color in DaVinci. You don't need to be some genius colorist, spending hours on each shot to make the Blackmagic cameras look nice. You simply edit your show with the native codec, drop the sequence into DaVinci and the moment you apply the built-in LUT for the camera, the shot comes to life. None of the other cameras work that way, it's like the camera has such a limited LUT setting range that if you step out of it, even a tiny bit, the shot requires more work to color. For instance, if you underexpose to get a certain look, when you try to bring it up in post, you get serious color shifts. That's a very common issue with all cameras, including blackmagic. It's just, with the thousands of hours I've had shooting with my blackmagic cameras, I can only count a few times where I've over and under exposed so much, it was hard to color. Where almost every shot I get from a Red, seems to have this issue and I spend hours on each shot matting out corners, bringing up some stuff, bringing down other stuff, fixing the color of faces and clothing, it's a real nightmare. Matching with other shots that are done correctly, can be even more difficult with the Red. Anyway, I'm not saying for a second the Blackmagic URSA Mini 4.6k is ready for primetime. It's a new camera and it really needs to be shaken down more before someone was to start shooting a feature or something. However, I think it's worth the risk... I think a day of testing would help and I think understanding how simple the post production workflow is, could be a game changer for some people who shoot and edit their own stuff. Obviously, if you're only a cinematographer, then the point of owning a camera is for your own projects most likely, so being able to have effective/efficient post, is nice.

Well, it wasn't my opinion.

Yep, all of those things are correct. It staggers me when I talk to potential renters of my package and they want hot gears, wireless video and an ultralight, all-day battery system. I'm like hold the phone, all day battery with a video tap? Yea, not gonna happen on any small/portable camera. I'm very much a run and gun filmmaker and I want a complete, lightweight package that's comfortable on my shoulder. Even for bigger projects, I just hate the mess of bigger cameras with all those cables running everywhere, what's the point? I love film partially because all of those accessories are unnecessary, it simplifies shooting life tremendously. The moment I'm having to plug a cable into my camera, the moment it's "tethered" to a battery or monitor, I'm kinda done with it.

True, they did announce the global shutter option is "currently" not an option because they haven't been able to figure out how to compensate for the noise in the imager when it's less sensitive. However, I have a feeling they will allow people to activate the global shutter option under lower ASA's in the future. Unlike the Red and Alexa cameras, which have stayed away from global shutters stock. It's true that Red has the "motion mount" option for some models, but it's just another expensive add-on.

Can you post a video sample. It really depends on if the issue is fixed or of it's moving and how it moves.