Tyler Purcell

Huh, I've not seen one of those, do you have a pix?

That's the assumption everyone has, but nobody has come up with a solution. Most internet today isn't fast enough and we currently produce more content then we can afford to store. Most of the people I know, produce well over 128gb a month worth of stills alone. Just uploading/managing all of that content is a job most people won't do. Plus, there is no "free" service to upload that much data. Everything costs money and the moment you stop paying, you could loose all that data. Plus, there is no instant access to any of it since it requires internet. So most people walk around with 1000 or so pictures on their phone that's not backed up which cover years worth of their life and that's it. Then their mobile device fails or is lost and they loose everything. So it's not JUST about the lack of long-term hands off storage, but it's also about data loss with digital devices. I've actually lost more content thanks to digital technology then I've ever lost during the film days. Probably because I take MORE pictures, shoot MORE video and have more content, so the ratio of material shot vs saved is the same. Well, magnetic tape stored properly isn't too bad, it can last quite a while. The problem is that most people don't store properly and the back coating of the tape fails. With audio tapes, you can bake them and still get data off, but with video tapes, generally they are too damaged. I use to build archiving solutions for magnetic tape, so I have quite a bit of experience dealing with bad tapes. I've threaded up 2" video tapes from the 60's that were stored correctly and they've worked fine. Yet 3/4" tapes from the 80's that weren't stored properly, clog heads so badly, they're impossible to playback even if you bake them. I actually designed a machine that kept the heads from clogging, but the company I did the work for, didn't see any potential. I was shocked and dismayed because my success rate was much higher, but still not enough. Tapes that clogged heads, would be thrown away in most cases, which is too bad. With audio, we had a 24 bit 192khz multi-channel encoder. For video, we had a very fancy 10 bit 4:2:2 Pro Res encoder that worked great. Our system was robotic and it drove the tape machine automatically. The files were then automatically stored on to A/B LTO6 tape AND a Proxy version was stored onto a hard drive. We'd hand back the client a hard drive and the LTO Tapes. It was a great system as LTO's last around 50 years sitting on a shelf, which is pretty good. Yet, the same problem exists, whose gonna playback an LTO6 tape in 50 years? I mean, it's going to be such an obsolete format, totally worthless in the grand scheme of things. Good Vinyl, good tube pre-amp's and solid state transistor based amp's are really good. Really well mastered CD's and high-end D/A converters sound good as well. Computer audio, generally sounds like crap, mostly because the clock of the computer and the clock of the D/A converter's, don't match. So it's very hard to get your computer to spit out higher quality audio then a really good playback device. I've done 100's of tests with a myriad of different devices over the years and being an audiophile, I can tell you computers never sound that good without specialized hardware. Same goes for computer displays... I mean most of them are 8 bit!

Wish I had the money to develop it. I really want to figure out of I can use a rolling loop design vertically. In my mind, that would be the ultimate design, with a high-power LED lamp in the middle of the rotary projector that doesn't require any crazy ventilation. The shutter would be rotary based and it COULD run 2, 3, 4 perf film. I'm just not sure if you can do what I want to do because it requires vacuum and unlike 15/70, 2 and 3 perf is such a smaller physical image, I don't know if it would work. Personally, I'm not really interested in developing/designing something that uses the same ol' movement, just modified. I'm only interested in doing something totally different, super small, lightweight and quiet. The guy who will help me design this beast, just got a huge mill, so all I need is a rapid prototyping machine.

The funny part is, we as a culture create more content today then ever before in our history. Yet, the digital age has one huge consequence, in 50 years, where will all that media be? Forget about movies and television, lets focus on still images and audio. A recent research paper said our future will be the least documented in the previous 50 years. Digital storage solutions don't mean anything because we are analog beings. So even if there was a breakthrough in storage, hold petabytes in a 1x1" cube, the devices necessary to playback that media will be the determining factor. Plus, imagine storing an entire lifetime of media in such a small device. Where would it be stored? When people pass away and their house is cleaned up, where will that content be? How will the family members get that data and view/save it for later use? We still have some of the first images ever made on paper and glass, they still exist over 150 years later. Will OUR life be viable by whatever creatures inhabit the world 150 years from now?

But they aren't in practice.

Yea, heavily modified LTR. It makes no noise, literally from 1 foot away, you can't hear it. SR3's are a lot quieter, but they still make more noise then the LTR. I use to be an Arri guy, but I'm an Aaton convert, I just love my LTR. I'll be picking up a few XTR Prod's for my school soon as well. :)

The truth is, there is no infrastructure for anything more then what we currently deliver. The vast majority of people on this planet are incapable of watching 1080p content pixel for pixel. Getting people to pay for faster internet, better computers, higher resolution monitors, it's just not going to happen fast. There are populated places in this country that don't even have cell towers, let alone fast internet. The vast majority of people don't live in media-rich places, so they aren't exposed to higher resolution. The desire to upgrade just doesn't exist and had terrestrial broadcast stayed SD, they would have been fine, I know I would have. I do agree that for archiving purposes, 8k is probably pretty smart. However, the industry standard compression standard for long-term storage (JPEG2000), isn't very efficient. 16 bit RGB 444 8k video is around 8GB per second. So for a 100 minute movie, you're looking at 800GB, most movies would be a Terabyte. So imagine storing that much data, I mean you're looking at dozens of petabytes that needs to be constantly backed up or a shelf with 6 cans of film. Original 35mm negative is around 4.5k and original 5 perf 70mm negative is around 8k. So if you want high res on a shelf, that's the way to go.

It's pretty loud! I recently did a shoot with a RED Epic and S16mm right next to each other and the S16 camera you couldn't hear, but the EPIC fan was prominent in the very quiet room. The RED One's are much louder, but both cameras get quieter when you start recording, it's just when they're on standby things get louder. So what is loud? Well, maybe 35db from 1 foot away? So not really "LOUD". Quieter then a MOS 35mm camera, but not nearly as quiet as a digital camera SHOULD be.

Yea, the rewards structure has always been my beef with crowd funding. You can do good rewards on features, but shorts, it's a whole other ballgame and even if you have good soft money, it's still not enough in most cases.

The Sony F5 is a lot of camera. It's also very rare to find a complete F5 package (Sony Viewfinder, batteries, cards) for much under $15k. The FS7 is actually a better deal in the long run if Sony is considered an option (which it's not in my book). You can find used FS7's for in that 5 - 7k bracket if you look hard enough. Unfortunately, the URSA 4.6k fully decked out brand new is STILL less money then a USED COMPLETE FS7 package. Plus, the URSA already has PL mount, RAW, Pro Res and all the bells and whistles necessary for a great looking image. On a side note, been shooting a lot recently with the C300MKII and it still amazes me how Canon can cripple their cameras so much. It's covered in "features" which is nice, but some of the most basic things I want like a histogram and RAW/Pro Res recording, aren't available. Plus, the camera makes noise like a RED does, which is just silly if you ask me. If you can't cool your camera with a heat sync, you've gotta come up with a different solution.

Thanks for the info Giacomo. I have one short film right now that is very current event that I really want to shoot, however it would cost around $25 - $30k to do it right. The big problem I've had is finding capitol for this and other smaller projects. I don't have a fan base to help spark interest, nor a top actor associated. If I could find a revenue source that works, I could probably fund it through friends, but it has to be fool-proof. So my question to you is; how do you deal with online fundraising for something that isn't going to be a big movie with huge payouts at the end? On kickstarter for instance, most people won't sign up unless there is some great gift at the end of it all.

Ahh got ya! So this begs the question, how did you recoup on the sales? What was your strategy going in.

Agreed! It was so close to being fantastic! I would have lost the dance scene/air plane crash and a few other things, but a 95 minute cut of that movie would have absolutely played better.

Great job, really enjoyed! A lot of money went into that short, my I ask where you were able to find such money for a short?

I too really enjoy '1941' it's such a campy bunch of whoop-ass, it's just great! I'm also a fan of star trek, so I enjoy those movies, pre-reboot. Honestly, I have a lot of "eclectic" taste in entertainment, so my list is too long for posting.

Blackmagic is a small company, like RED was when they first started. They're also NOT an American company, so it's challenging to get support. I haven't needed support, but I know the support people well and they say things are better here in the states today, then they have been in the last few years. I don't believe Sony and Panasonic has much support for consumer products anymore. They use to, but today it's all pushed to the reseller, which most people don't have any connection to. Canon has actual support, which is very nice. I've dealt with them many times and they've been very helpful, but I think that's more related to top people using their cameras for still's, rather then the video market. I don't think everything Blackmagic makes is ready for prime time yet, but they're WAY closer then RED was when they first launched. The RED ONE was a train wreck when it first came out, the first shows had upwards of 9 camera bodies they'd cycle through scene by scene, just to keep them working. Blackmagic doesn't have those issues what so ever. You can buy a camera and it will work if it's not defective. I own two pockets and have borrowed/rented other one's for bigger shoots, never once had an issue with any of them. Same goes for the cinema camera that everyone bitches/complains about, my experiences have been nothing but positive. The URSA Mini, same deal, just a flat-out nice camera, that works great. Not a fan of the BIG URSA, it's a worthless camera thanks to the Mini, but I have yet to experience all the issues people talk about. So either people are doing something odd with their use of the camera, or they're just defective from the factory. Talk about JVC and Canon, I've had more issues with those two brands then any others. Dead pixels, over-heating cameras, bad recording heads, bad logic on the menu systems, horrible shifting on the glass when trying to focus, audio distortion no matter what you do, phantom power blowing up mic's, loose cabling inside cameras, etc... AND worst off, those were borrowed/rental cameras! I can't imagine owning either brands products for video production. For stills, not such a big deal because you can easily fix dead pixels in photoshop, much harder to do on a video camera. So for me constantly abusing the black magic cameras the way I do, including shooting in a pool last weekend with water splashing the camera and of course, salt water on the ocean shoots, heat of the desert, cold of the snow capped mountains. I mean, my pockets have been through A LOT and been fine. But I understand if you power them with an external source, they will overheat, so I don't do that. I mean, how difficult is that?

If you already have equipment insurance and are using your own equipment, then you don't need anything else. If you're letting people borrow your equipment, they will need to put your name on the documents. I've been dealing with an insurance claim for two months now from equipment damage someone did on a recent rental. I'm glad I got insurance!

But it also has to do with the look you're trying to achieve. You may want a hard/bright backlight, but not much key or fill. The key for ME at least, is to measure things on set based on LOOK, rather then just tables. Every type of light has it's purpose, building your truck based your needs for a specific show, is based on experience that's hard to quantify in a table. I wish there was a 3d program that allowed you to place lights, camera, set lenses, stock/imager and everything for a given shot and balance it all out before going to set. You can do the math for sure, but it would be nice to have a program.

Digibeta was heavily used until the change to HD.

I haven't had a lick of "failure" related issues with the pocket OR my friends URSA Mini 4.6k that I've been messing with. The tripod mount on the pocket can unscrew internally, but it's easy to fix. Also, the battery situation kinda sucks, but it's fixable by understanding the issue and working around it. Since NAB, the URSA Mini issues have been resolved and the cameras are fine. Unfortunately, until you put something into actual production, it's hard to see it's weaknesses. Your complains from the little bit of use you've had on the pocket, are the same one's every reviewer has. Yet none of them have actually produced a single, watchable product with the camera. Just test footage, mostly garbage still-life nonsense. My pocket cameras (I own two) and Rokinon lenses are CONSTANTLY in production, non stop in fact. I'm two weeks in on a feature, shooting BTS. Prior, the cameras were in Colorado on a feature and I was using them to shoot other stuff before that, all in the last two months. Blackmagic has done a great job updating software to keep the ol' pocket "relevant" and are constantly making changes to the URSA 4.6k. There are still functions missing, like the global shutter. However, those functions should be on later software revisions. I don't think there is another camera on the market as capable as the 4.6k URSA mini for the same price point. Every other camera has a small problem, which pushes it aside. You can get a complete URSA Mini 4.6k package BRAND NEW with batteries/charger/viewfinder/shoulder mount for $8500 bux. None of the competitors in that price range offer RAW recording or Pro Res XQ. Plus, they all need to be accessorized in order to work, so the net result is even a higher price for not a better camera. It's true the Sony and RED counterparts offer some intriguing possibilities including ultra low light capability and high frame rates. Blackmagic did make some bugaboo's on the URSA Mini, but they're small and easy to fix in a future revision or with software patches.

Sony doesn't actually make tape anymore, they have a third party making them.

But whose talking 35mm? Also, it's difficult to make a movie with a 5:1 ratio. I always work with a 10:1 ratio at the minimal when budgeting. Buy enough film for an 8:1 ratio and if you run out, you can always buy more. Super 16 has 2.5k of resolvable resolution, which is perfectly good for digital projection. You would buy a camera and lenses on ebay using a credit card and sell them after the movie was done, so your cost for equipment would be maybe an interest charge, since you can usually sell for what you bought it for. I've posted the S16 numbers MANY times, from actual quotes I've received, not guesses. S16, 10:1 ratio, 100 minute movie. Stock = .32/ft * 400 = $128 * 92 rolls = $11,776 Processing = .12/ft * 37,000ft = $4400 Transfer (4k) = .50/ft * 37,000ft = $18,500 Complete work = $35,000 That's "retail" pricing. If you walked up to Kodak or a lab and gave them this job, you'd get a MUCH better deal. You'd also need a credit card to deal with the payment of the camera, but $10k credit card that you'll wind up getting back in the end, isn't too difficult. The other ancillary items you may need, you can do the ol' ebay trick with as well. In the end, the only number that will absolutely come out of your pocket is the $35k. With the digital workflow, you COULD buy a camera, but you aren't getting an Alexa or RED. So to RENT a digital camera, decent glass, support, monitors, drives/storage and have all the ability on set to download/manage, you're talking quite a bit of money. Typical ultra-low RED package deal is $3000/day with glass, monitors, support, etc.. booked at 3 day week. So for a 4 week shoot = $36,000 A typical ALEXA package deal, with ultra primes and zooms, will be about double that. Then you've gotta deal with storage and it's very expensive. Right now, the storage budget on this little indy I'm shooting is $3k and we're not shooting RAW or Pro Res. The typical drive budget for a small feature is around $5k. Then you've gotta transcode all the footage to a workable format from the camera RAW, either arriraw or RED code, which gobbles up even more drives and time. Plus, you really need to pay a DIT, it's a critical job because the cards only last a few minutes and someone has to deal with the data. Where an AC could do that job, they're usually too busy on set. Loading magazines in the morning and at lunch is easy, but a DIT job is full time. The DIT's I know, get $5k a week with their package included. In post, digital requires far more work as well and since work equates to time and time equates to money, it's more expensive to "treat" digital material then film. Generally film looks good out of the camera and only needs small tweaks during the coloring sessions. I've worked with many top colorists who all say the same thing, a typical film job will take HALF the time of a typical digital job. So if you look at the cost breakdowns in that light, you can see how much MORE digital is then S16mm. There is also no argument that a S16mm film shot well with low ASA stocks, has enough data to warrant a 4k scan. So if the argument is that a 4k digital movie will have more resolution, so it's somehow better... I wouldn't exactly say that. It costs thousands to store digital original camera files for years. Drives fail on their own from not being used. So re-compiling original camera data, can be very challenging with a digital show. With film, processed camera negative can last on a shelf in normal room temperatures for 100 years without much deterioration. This is why I like at least striking an IP from a cut negative, at least you've GOT your movie on film. The only way something could happen if it was lost and that's even a bigger problem with a digital show, where drives are so small these days. It's far easier to loose/misplace digital media then film. Your "cost" includes everything from the day you start production through the day you sell. Having that camera negative sitting on shelf is a HUGE asset. A bunch of hard drives, isn't so much.

Yea, those cameras are rented in multiple boxes, so it's very confusing. Generally, it's smart to know how to work the equipment you are renting. If you're in a media arts program and nobody taught you how to use a light meter, that's a big problem. It's more expensive to shoot/experiment with 35mm, that's for sure. I wouldn't ever recommend shooting on 35 for beginners, but mainly due to the expense and the fact Super 16 looks so good, why bother?

F900? Umm, Sony discontinued tape-based cameras years ago. B&H has them on their website as "bait" to draw people to their site who use google searches. They also have other long-discontinued cameras on their site, stating "special order".

The matte would be done during the optical reduction.