Tyler Purcell

Right, but the 5DMII fundamentally changed the way everyone thought about what we do and how we do it. No doubt it was a completely flawed design, not designed at all for shooting movies. Yet again, without it, that market would have never been tested. The other cameras were all WAY more money, more like film camera money. The Canon was the cheapest option and it opened HUGE doors.

The camera is super important, but I personally think skills are far more important. You aren't going to make something look cinematic, unless you understand what it takes to do so. Adding a cinematic looking camera, only helps sell what you're already shooting. Lighting, depth of field, field of view, composition/framing and how the camera moves in the shot, are all critical elements. If you've watched a lot of movies, you will have seen how cinema is done. Emulating your favorite cinematic scene in order to understand what went into making it look so good, could be a good methodology for learning how to work in these situations.

I'm afraid those days of a full IMAX screen are long over thanks to digital projection. Nolan's Normandy will probably be the next movie done in the old format.

Right, but all of the previous technology was based on small ccd imagers. Even though the 5d wasn't designed for video, every cinema camera that was developed after it, has used very similar technology. It was the decision to go large imager cmos that was the big leap. Prior, all the cameras used decades old tech which was updated of course, but still not what we'd consider cinema today. I personally don't see using the final generation of old technology a step towards new technology. I also don't see the old made for broadcast cameras of the past, being anything special. The people who experimented with those cameras, we're just playing with technology. They were trying to turn something that was never designed for that purpose, into something workable. It took the visionaries at canon, red, arri and blackmagic to make digital cinema truly happen. Sony may have been first, but it took them a while to join the cmos band wagon and really be a serious player. So I discount their involvement... It was the happy accident of the 5d which really set things in motion.

I guess, but there has been other films shot digitally prior to George Lucas's involvement. I don't think anything George did was THAT pioneering. In my eyes, the big game changer was getting the technology into the hands of random strangers. That's what changed everything. Had the 5DMKII never shot video, had Canon not pushed for that development, others would not have followed and we would be many years behind the curve today. But I get your point, once a studio saw the potential for digital thanks to Lucas, it was all down hill. I just think, once the consumers had these cameras, once the manufacturers started building lots of them, THAT's what changed things the most.

I don't think the Lucas F900 has much to do with the development that came later. There were a few movies shot with the camera, but other cameras like the Viper, really made a bigger impact due to it's much higher quality image, better dynamic range and low light capabilities. If I were to pick a camera that made the biggest difference, it would be the Canon 5DMKII. That was the first "cinema" camera, big imager, great look, that's what changed everything. If I were to pick a director, I'd look at two guys; David Fincher and James Cameron. Fincher was the guy who showed everyone the potential of digital cinema. Cameron was the guy who pushed the industry away from film and towards digital.

You don't need a tape to see if the machine works. Do you know how to bypass the record switch? Put a blank tape in it and push the record button. Give the machine an audio source to see if the meters move. You have to determine if the machine isn't powering up OR if it's just a belt. I don't recall the belt being difficult to replace. But then again, I re-build things all the time.

If you shoot modern stocks with modern cameras and transfer with modern scanners, Super 8 can look like a noisier 16mm. However, the VAST majority of people, don't do that. They use older cameras with poor registration and they use stocks which are noisy and inferior transfers. I'm currently supplying a friend with Super 8 equipment for a feature, which has a subplot shot in that format. We wanted the noise, grain and dirt and we got just that with my old Yashica Super 8 camera. It looks like a home movie and I think that's what the vast majority of people who shoot super 8 are looking for. People who want real quality, generally opt for 16mm or better. So WHY does super 8 generally look bad compared to it's bigger brothers? Well, it's just technical. There have been many discussions about it and many threads you should dig up and read. The Kodak camera will be an option for shooting higher quality material for sure. It doesn't solve all the problems, but it does solve a few of them.

Did the lights dim when you tried to engage the motor, or did they stay strong? If you plugin a source, can you see the VU meters move when in record? The belts are a very common failure point and you would not see anything spinning if they failed. So that could be the problem and it's VERY common.

Freya is right on the nose, it's probably something simple. I've had many of these units before and they're pretty robust. The only catch is if you power it with something that's over voltage, it will pop the fuse. I'm pretty sure it has a standard on-board soldered fuse, which is easy to access. I haven't needed to in the past, but if you can dig up a manual, I'd check.

Sharpening masks generally don't hold up well, they can get noisy very fast. The side effect is the area that's sharpened will have a cross-grid of noise that is unexpected. Mild sharpening like David describes, is used but nowhere near as frequently as de-grain or "softening" of the image. All of the artists I've worked with, de-grain film without hesitation. It's kind of the go-to problem fixer for film grain, which is quite sad. Adding noise to film through the sharpening mask, is rare. I can see if your transfer wasn't good, there maybe room for sharpening, but with a good transfer, film should offer plenty of crispness, that you should be more interested in backing off, rather then adding.

So the spring loaded mechanism that locks the head is stuck? All you need is needle noise pliers, push on the ring and twist, it should come right off.

Nice! One little "reel" tip, keep the same shows/sequences together. So the girl walking up to the window, you should start with the wide and go to the close up back to back. Then show a few shots of the little boy, then the next and so on. This way you're not going back and forward between shows.

I was referring to 2.35:1 anamorphic shooting, (one of the only real benefits to 4 perf).

There are a few methodologies at play here. 4 perf cameras are a dime a dozen, literally. Most sellers, are having to sell them for almost crap metal prices, which is INSANE. You can pickup a decent, quiet, large and hungry, 4 perf Super 35mm camera for under 3k any day of the week. You can pick one up, shoot the film and sell it right after and you've not missed a beat. Plus, if you ever plan on going back to film, 4 perf is really the only way to do it. 3 and 2 perf cameras are much more money and very few people are selling them. So doing the whole turn around thing on buying and selling, can be a lot more difficult and costly. Then you're also stuck to using 1.85:1 or 2.35:1, unless you have a lot of money and can rent 1.3x anamorphic lenses for the 3 perf camera. You're also using less negative then Super 35mm 4 perf, so more grain, noise and on 2 perf, the potential for hairs in the gate. The days of doing a blow up from 3 perf to 4 perf for a decent rate, those are long gone. Most labs charge a lot of money for that work, like $2.50 a foot or more. I personally don't feel 3 perf is worth the aggravation of not being able to do inexpensive prints. If you're gonna do a film workflow, you've gotta shoot 4 perf. If you're gonna do a digital workflow, then you can shoot 2 or 3 perf without a problem and "fix it in post". 2 perf is the cheapest way to shoot 35mm, even if you count in rental cost. We're talking HALF the price for everything; raw stock, processing, transfer, etc.. The money saved can be put into a better camera package AND have more left over for other departments. I've budgeted all three 35mm options and S16. Honestly, 2 perf and S16 are VERY close in price, if you're doing a digital finish. In the end, I still prefer S16 over 35mm any day of the week. Smaller/lighter cameras, cheaper cameras, cheaper lenses, cheaper stock/processing, filmic image and if you use lower ASA stocks, it's very clean. A lot of people waste money shooting 35mm because they want that "look" but a lot of that can be achieved through clever cinematic techniques during production on narrow gauge formats.

Yep, but it was their vision in the long run.

Yea, someone who brings their own idea to the big screen.

You would think so, but honestly it's too late... here is the reason why. The problem has to do with technology, theaters and the studio's being money grubbing. Film projectors are well-made, robust machines that are inexpensive to purchase compared to digital and they last forever. Early digital cinema was an experiment, theaters would purchase one or two projectors per theater, the rest would run film. A film print would cost the theater around $3000 + rental fee's, but they could run that print on multiple screens at the same time. So theater owners would keep the costs down by using their talented projection staff, most of whom were union. The film workflow was pretty bulletproof, prints were shipped via the standard carriers in locked boxes. Theaters would be given the combo via fedex and unlock them, usually on the wednesday before release so they could build and test them. Prints could easily run 200 screenings before they wore out, which is more then 2 months. Then, the theaters would ship them back, the studio's would recycle the prints and the whole cycle would begin again. Then came the move to digital. Instead of a slow ramp-up, the owners of Deluxe, the biggest print manufacturing company in the US (NYC/LA) said they'd stop making prints by the end of 2013. This announcement happened sometime in the end of 2012 and it freaked everyone out! All of a sudden, the theaters had to scramble to get digital projectors and LOTS OF THEM, very very fast! AMC worked out a lease deal with Sony, 150 million dollars worth of projectors. The smaller theaters had no choice but to go out of business (sell to bigger chains) or risk only getting lower-end movies on 35mm, prints made by only ONE company in the US in limited numbers. Then IMAX came out with a huge blow, they would stop releasing blowup prints at the end of 2014. So any theater projecting 70mm IMAX would no longer be getting standard movies on film. This was a HUGE blow to those theaters, they scrambled and were all forced to install digital projectors in order to stay working. Lucky for some, they were newer theaters and already had digital projectors. Those IMAX theaters that were forced to migrate from film to digital, spent MILLIONS doing so, one of them actually sued IMAX because they had just invested in a 3D 15/70 system that was now completely obsolete. What does all this mean? Since James Cameron forced every theater to buy a 3D projector to kickstart the trend of removing film projectors from theaters, we have seen ticket prices skyrocket. Today, most theaters are $14/ticket for 2D and anything that's 3D is upwards of $20 for IMAX 3D. The problem is, theaters are just starting to realize how unreliable digital projectors are over the long term. Theaters are scrambling to replace worn projectors, upgrade to 4k and of course, somehow get more money for tickets. Many theaters are selling customers on the newest gimmick; Laser projection. Where both Hateful Eight and Batman V Superman, did better numbers on 70mm then digital, screen v screen. The studio's can't sell movies to theaters which don't guarantee a certain box office. Since most of the smaller/independent theaters closed down (or sold out) during this film to digital switch, the big theater conglomerates now make the calls. AMC pretty much dictates what the studio's can and can't sell. Since the studio's are held by the balls by the big theater's, which are the only current way for the studio's to make a lot of money... they make these heavily marketed behemoths, which are made by research groups, so they can't fail. Rumor is, Batman V Superman had a marketing budget of over 200 million, which is why they needed a billion to break even. You can't outspend the studio's, your little indy film maybe coming out the same week as a big release, but nobody will know about it because all everyone wants to do is see the movie which has been put into people's faces for years on every social media, billboard and television show. So why don't the studio's make a 5M movie? Because each studio can spend a billion dollars a year on making two huge behemoth's that will make everyone happy and they'll make a billion in profits. For them, it's all about profits and outdoing one another. But the only reason why ANY of this exists is thanks to the high ticket prices. If the theaters were charging $7.50 like they did only 10 years ago, prior to the digital projection nonsense, they would be full of people watching on a regular basis. People would take a chance on those smaller movies and some could do well in the box office. Yes, the studio's profit has been up year over year, but ticket sales have been down, outside of 2015, thanks to Star Wars and Jurassic World, both had HUGE repeat viewership. Unique cinema viewership has been down considerably since the highs of the early 2000's, prior to the bubble burst, prior to the ticket rate bump. When the studio's feel more secure about showing their movies day and date at home, it will be the end of cinema as we know it. The cinema will turn into a different "experience" based thing and most people who want to see first run movies, will simply watch them at home. It's the sad but inevitable truth based on the direction we're currently on. This is why a 5M or even $20M movie, doesn't stand a chance.

Absolutely agreed. Directors are generally hired hands. Brought in to make a product. Filmmakers are generally creators. Bringing their own vision to the screen. With that said, there are plenty of examples of true artisans, true "filmmakers" being hired to do someone else's work. One notable would be Stanley Kubrick on Spartacus. In todays studio system, the "director" is brought in based on previous works, cost and availability. Most hollywood directors don't even get a say on what they're making.

Yea, the scanned grain is 10x better then the digital nonsense. The little scratches and white dots help sell it completely. Glad you were able to make it work! :)

Yea, the Zacuto tests are great! But it's been a while since they've done them. They also stopped using film as the base for their comparisons, which is unfortunate.

True, I mean a quick change of focal lengths to get different coverage, is a great use for a zoom. With narrative shooting, I personally like moving the camera to change my shot, rather then zoom because of course, changing focal length, changes field of view. I don't like it when filmmakers change field of view on coverage. Personally, I would only use a zoom if I'm zooming in shot, my primes are faster, smaller, lighter and crisper. When I shoot documentary, the zoom is my go-to lens. Honestly, I've done quite a bit of shooting with modern DSLR glass, shot a feature with the stuff and many short subject films. I have yet to find anything that holds a candle to the cinema counterpart. It's the small things like the type of coatings (inherent warmth), how it deals with boca, how it deals with reflections, then all the mechanical aspects as well, which are a deal killer in my book. I'm also not addicted to zoom lenses, I'm perfectly OK with using all primes and changing lenses between shots if I need to change field of view/focal length. It's true that some of the older Nikon still glass is pretty darn good. Even then, I'd still rather have something setup more like a cinema lens.

This guy has a great discussion about this and why there is a considerable difference between cinema and DSLR glass. One thing he mentions that I always forget is the cinema zoom's parfocus ability, which is super important. I just did a shoot this last week with FS7's and DSLR glass. Adjusting the stop was a pain, it would either open up too much, or not enough because it's not infinitely variable, like a de-clicked external mechanical adjustment. I personally would never recommend DSLR glass for a cinema camera, even if you modify it. Article: http://wolfcrow.com/blog/what-is-a-cine-lens-and-why-must-it-be-different-from-a-photo-lens/ Video: FYI, it's one of the main reasons I went with a Blackmagic Pocket Cinema camera VS a large-imager camera. It's A LOT easier to find old school glass that looks fantastic and covers a Super 16mm size imager. I'm starting to shoot a new documentary this week and I just started using my Zeiss 12-120 S16 zoom lens on the BMPCC for the first time and the stuff came out great. It's so wonderful having a REAL piece of glass, it makes all the difference in my opinion. So if you're just having fun shooting and struggling for money, better to buy a smaller imager camera and better glass, then a larger imager camera that almost certainly requires better glass.

I've been working with a few SRI and SRII's which have been converted recently. I've been shocked to find the gate and backplates still have standard 16 guides. This means, the area of the frame reserved for the soundtrack previously and now used for picture, is being squeezed by the gate and backplate as it runs through the camera. I was horrified by this idea because true Super 16 cameras don't have this issue at all. One side note, the SRI/SRII's are pretty loud as well. I would consider them borderline sound cameras, you need some sort of cover to do sound-critical filmmaking. Mostly this is due to the old school mechanical drive on the magazines. By contrast, the Aaton LTR/XTR's are nearly silent. I recently purchased an LTR 54 which was modified with XTR components to bring it up to modern Super 16 spec. Having used SR's for my entire life previous, for almost all of my sync sound filmmaking, I'm to this day shocked how quiet my LTR is. Yes, you'll still get the ever typical scraping of the film inside the magazine if its loose. You'll also get a tiny bit of gear noise from the mechanical drive (fixed on the XTR) but in reality, the camera in my opinion, is the quietest camera for the money. I'm glad they fixed many of those issues on the XTR, but they are a bit more money used because they're in a lot of ways, a better camera.

Yes, if you already have a game plan that puts you onto a real film set, then it's good to get some basic hands on experience first. Whether that's a $3000 class or not... thats up to you. I'm certain a book about lighting and working for free on some student films, would probably deliver the same experience, without the expense. You won't get paid for your work, but that's kind how you get started anyway.