Tyler Purcell

I saw this on my facebook page today from No Film School dot com and it REALLY pissed me off. My roommie heard it playing and even he was pissed off. https://youtu.be/4KJ5vzxefRw This is my response on youtube and facebook: It's kind of a vicious cycle. Kids go to college, they graduate and they're looking for work in the industry straight away. They may have a little reel, but most kids won't have a "industry standard" reel. With that said, isn't it better to work your ass off learning what it's like to be on a real film set, prior to really building your career? I think a lot of people go buy fancy cameras and think they can make it somehow, but it requires more then that. It does require hard work during your time away from set, it does require practicing your craft outside of being on a bigger project where the stress level is high. There are so many moving pieces and at the same time, you MUST survive as a person financially.

I'm absolutely going to say stick with the pocket camera. With the right lenses and decent coloring job, it can be made to look pretty filmic, especially indoors where you've got more control over the lighting. Also, knowing the material you want to shoot, I think film will be cost prohibitive in the long run. Everything adds up very quickly... even if you strike a deal with Kodak (.32/foot) and Cinelab (.38/foot), I think each short film will cost around $1500 - $2500 to make, depending on if you want more coverage. This is the reason why the broadcast industry went towards video in the early 80's for ENG shooting, the cost to do little stand up shoots was getting out of control. Plus, delays on getting the film processed in time for the 5 o'clock news, was always an issue. Since your doing so many films, the delay on not being able to see your material right away and fix things with such a limited schedule, may get you into trouble. When you have such a limited amount of time to do something, good digital is absolutely a better way to go. It's not like you have a $10k budget for each show and two weeks to do each one. It think you'd get tired of doing a short every week and dealing with film. It would be great for select shorts which were maybe more cinematic then others, something you can do more prep with. But for those every day shorts, it maybe a bit over-kill.

Run the magazine with test film and NO sides on it. To me, it sounds like you've got something skipping. Whether it's the pulldown mechanism or magazine, I think there is something more serious wrong. You can generally tell if something is wrong by watching how the film is tugged from the supply and pulled for the takeup. I bet you can see the problem pretty quickly with dummy film loaded.

Limits are for lenses that don't have repeatable focus, like modern still DSLR glass. If you use real cinema glass, you don't really need limits. On remote/wireless follow focus, they automatically calibrate to the lens to find the two furthest points. This way you know where your at when pulling remotely in relationship to the glass.

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.