Tyler Purcell

The rails cost more then the camera body! LOL That's a bit "excessive" to use such a nice piece of glass on a toy camera. As much as I love my pocket cameras, if I were going to spend that much on glass, I'd have a bigger camera. But that's just me. :D

It does look really good. I thought I read somewhere they did a telecine of everything.

I'm actually one of those guys who loves film, but doesn't like grain. So I can feel your pain about the grain. The only REAL way to eliminate grain is to use lower ASA stocks. I've been doing some tests recently on Fuji 64D and Kodak 50D, but going direct to print with the stuff so I can see what it actually looks like. I've been blown away by the Kodak 50D 7203. It's a fantastic stock and honestly, you'd be surprised at how sensitive it is. We just did a shoot up in the snow packed mountains (pine mountain) near the grape vine and even in the shade at dusk, there was plenty of light. I also like shallow depth of field and that's something very tricky to get on S16. So lower ISO, good glass, longer focal lengths and keeping it wide open are the tricks I've always used to get that 35mm look without the grain. Grain reduction tends to soften the image and it no longer looks crisp. Telecine's in general aren't quite as crisp as scanners either. So you were already on the softer side of things to begin with. I'm sure someone will argue that point, but it's true. The cost difference between S16 and 2 perf 35mm isn't too bad. You may talk to panavision and Abel to see if either one can work out a deal on the camera. Panavision has great indy deals, I've priced stuff with them and was impressed. Stock and processing cost aren't much more either, you're talking 1.5x the money. Another thing to try if you're concerned about interiors which are dark, is to shoot those on 3 perf 35mm. This will give you an image that's much less noisy then the S16, but also 1.85:1 instead of 2.35:1 like 2 perf. Then shoot all the daylight/exterior S16 to save money on those scenes. Mixing and matching 16 and 35 is cool, especially if you use 50D on the 16 and 500T (3 perf) on the 35mm. You can also get better deals renting a 3 perf camera then 2 perf camera, there are more available. 2 perf 35mm cropped to 1.85:1 is so close to the frame size of 16mm it's kinda not worth the effort.

If you want wide angle, just buy standard Canon still glass. If you look around, you can find speciality lenses for sure. I have a set of Optar primes for my 16mm film camera that I also use on my digital camera with an adaptor. They work great, but they're very expensive.

No all film that's processed is transparent. Negative film though is very fragile and of course is a negative image, not positive. So whites are black and the colors are reversed as well. This makes it a bit harder to scan properly.

Ohh the blacks on laser projection are a lot better, it's absolutely a marketable improvement. However, nobody releases films with absolute black, so it really doesn't mean anything. I was impressed with the IMAX laser projection, but not as much with the Dolby Vision, which still had standard ol' aliasing lines. The big problem for me is that most content is still distributed in 2k. So these projector manufacturers can spend all the money they want making 4k and 8k solutions, (IMAX laser is 8K compatible) but until we are finishing films in 4k or better, there is no point. What kills me is that a good 70mm print still blows the doors off any digital projection I've seen in color reproduction and dynamic range. Why IMAX went to digital in the first place is only to make more money for themselves. They charge millions for the digital projectors and content is more costly then ever to license. It's a great scam to get theaters away from ever-lasting film projectors that will run for the next 100 years into a new technology which is dependent the prevailing winds.

I use Rokinon cine primes for my digital cinema cameras and they work great. Some of the wider angle lenses aren't so hot, but anything north of 24mm is good. A lot of my friends use standard EF zooms on theirs, I just think they make the camera really big, something I'm not a fan of. I like the compactness of the primes. It only takes a second to change focal lengths unless you're doing run and gun.

Yep, that's a good "telecine" rate. If you have a camera with perfect registration, it's a good way to go. If the camera's registration isn't so good like the camera the OP wants to use, I'd recommend a scan.

Processing color negative at home, is pretty challenging in of itself. When you add the kind of film lengths that are required for motion picture film, that's where things become more complicated. Yes... you can absolutely build your own machine to process motion picture film, but the cost would be astronomical. What most people do is unroll film into a big container and swish chemicals around. Unfortunately that process doesn't work well because not every surface is covered evenly. The other way is to roll the film from one side to another, through a chemical bath. This method is better, but it's VERY time consuming and because chemicals stay on the film as this happens, it can lead to blotches and other uniformity issues. Truthfully, there isn't a "fool proof" solution on the market today and even some of the older solutions, are hard to find, very fragile (plastic parts that fail) and as I said earlier, you really need to be a chemist to process color film anyway. Plus, once you're done processing, the drying part is extremely difficult and trying to hang 100's of feet worth of film around your house, isn't exactly a smart idea. Here is an example of a home made processing machine: https://www.flickr.com/photos/dark_orange/2042501949/in/set-72157603226919391/ In terms of transferring color negative to some sort of digital file. If you send the film out for processing and get it back to scan, you're also in a bit of a bind. There are some interesting ways to go about this though and one of them is to rip apart a projector, and build your own scanner. If you google search this, you will see some of the options. It's actually not that difficult if you know how to make electric circuits that can trigger a stepper motor, digital still camera and LED lamp source. You can get some good results from a home made scanner but you won't get anywhere near the results of a professional system, that's because the home made system has zero control over registration AND transferring negative really requires a different type of lamp source. You'd have to experiment with light sources and negative, maybe even invest in an adjustable color LED panel to start with. A good link to start the topic of film transfer: http://thecreatorsproject.vice.com/blog/kinograph-may-be-the-savior-of-film Plus, the russian camera you plan on buying, doesn't have good registration to begin with. The image will shake all over the place without something to stabilize it with. This is where having a good scan with an excellent machine, will help greatly. I know you really wanna do everything yourself, but I fret the cost of doing it yourself properly, will outweigh the benefits. Yes, it's awesome to get your hands dirty and as a HUGE film buff, I've always wanted my own machines. However, having processed color and B&W negative still film for years, I know how challenging it is to make it perfect and in all honesty, getting perfection at home is nearly impossible. So we all resort to sending our film to labs that have clean rooms and do it right. With all that said, processing B&W reversal is a lot easier and if you could care less how it comes out, playing around with it at home using a morse processing tank, maybe be a lot of fun. It won't come out perfect, there will be streaks in the highlights in some spots, but if you just wanna have fun, it's a good way to go. http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=9878

I mean, you're penny pinching stock cost. Processing at it's absolute best rate is .12/foot and scanning is around .45/foot depending on the resolution. So your 1000ft of film will run you $570 at absolute best + drive cost and a few other fee's. So you're looking at close to a grand per 1000ft (stock+processing+scan)

Stock is actually one of the cheaper things because you can get expired stock on ebay. The problem is processing and as I've mentioned before, how are people going to watch it? You can't project color negative and you clearly are looking for low-cost solutions for things, so you can't make a telecine machine yourself out of a projector without making a print first, which is costly in of itself. Just trying to figure out your game plan.

The Toyota Camry and Honda Civic are the most popular cars ever made, doesn't make them any good. If you buy a Toyota Camry, you'd probably have a very satisfactory result. But if you also buy a BMW M3, you'd have a reference to compare the Camry to. The problem with MPEG is that it's an almost free codec, licensing is pennies compared to the alternatives. So like the Camry analogy, people buy into it not knowing what they're missing. Since Sony designs the cameras around shooting with an MPEG format, how do you know what quality you're loosing if your camera doesn't do anything else? Most things are great if you have no reference to compare them to.

If you want it not to look like some foreign language dubbed movie, it's very time consuming. You still need audio from set for the actors to listen to, so they can hear how they presented the original dialog. Then their job is to mimmic the original recording, which requires many takes. Then you've gotta figure out how to mate it to the picture, which is challenging because even if it looks perfect during the recording sessions, it's rare to BE perfect by the time you hit mixing. Generally what happens in ADR sessions is that Actors struggle to find the dynamics and emotion they had on set. If you have great actors who are fluent with ADR sessions, things are a lot easier for sure. I can't put a timeframe on ADR, but it could easily take weeks for a feature.

Good, that makes two of us. Ohh I've been working on two features, one that's almost done shot on Blackmagic 2.5k and the other shot on C300. Both have sales agreements for theatrical. Though I don't think the one shot on the C300 will make it. :( Well, I don't want MPEG on top of MPEG with a mix of MPEG. Those aren't really different codec's. Also, I don't want mult-thousand dollar upgrades that make the camera larger. Neither of those two things are acceptable in today's world. The only reason Sony doesn't do internal recording in Pro Res and RAW is because their processor is weak sauce and can't handle it. So they force you to buy boxes that contain faster processors. You could argue they're forcing people to buy the add-on's because of licensing, but that's complete bullshit. If it were licensing, they'd have no problem recording it internally without an add on box. I want ALL the pro res codec's, CINEMA DNG (tiff), DNxHD and a flavor of raw jpeg2000, even if it's proprietary with a plugin for DaVinci. If you create a hyper sensitive imager, it's incapable of doing anything else but being hyper sensitive. When you ask it to run lower ISO's in order to shoot outdoors for instance, the imager simply can't take that much light and you loose dynamic range/color accuracy. So the operator must run the camera at higher ISO's with lots of filtration. When you stack ND's like that, you are substantially changing the look of the image. In terms of the processor, the F5's processor is MUCH better then the FS7 (16 bit vs 10 bit). That's why the F5 looks better in arguably most situations. This processor limitation situation is rot throughout Sony's consumer and prosumer camera line. It's no different then Canon and Nikon, both who run lower-end processors in their DSLR's, most likely due to heat dissipation vs size since DLSR's have so many moving components. Sony doesn't have an excuse with their prosumer cameras and lower-end commercial cameras. The cost to run a better processor is minimal and there is PLENTY of space in the FS7 for one. It's an annoyance that just doesn't need to exist. The iPhone in your pocket probably has a faster processor then MOST Sony cameras. Heck even GoPro have been using the immensely powerful A9 chip in their new cameras. Not saying the A9 is better then what Sony spec's, just saying if you think that way about camera building, you'd be able to do a lot more internally without the need for extra add-on bits. Again, I'm not really complaining about the F5 as much as I'm griping about owning a product from a manufacturer that purposely limits their cameras. I hope someone does listen because you haven't given any evidence to the contrary. Have you tested RED, Alexa, Sony, Blackmagic cameras back to back on the same shoot? I have, in fact on many occasions. Have you then taken the camera files and manipulated them in post production so you can tell the differences between the cameras? I have, in fact I use to demo this poop at NAB for years. I remember a Sony rep coming over and dropping off NEW footage for me to use in our demo because he was embarrassed with the stuff we shot. It didn't matter, I turned it black and white and showed people the rings (halo) around bright objects in frame thanks to the 8 bit process or the A7S. Heck why do you think I keep commenting about highlight clipping and the Sony cameras? Dude, the demo we used at NAB I shot outside at night, the cars that reflected light or headlights from those vehicles would leave streaks of pure white on the image. The point was to show how good the camera performed at night and how much manipulation could be done. But you can't manipulate anything that's already clipped! So sure, you're a great cinematographer working in a controlled environment, who cares what you shoot with. I'm glad the F5 works for you as it does for so many people. As I've said many times, it's a good looking camera, no doubt about it.

My advice was simply a comment based on my experience. I also believe "documentary" shouldn't be limited to television. In my world when you say documentary, it's a feature film destined for theaters. So my mind set is always skewed towards that world, which is the Pro Res/Raw world. Yes, I admit my experience shooting with the FS7 and F5 is very limited. As I said earlier, I dislike those cameras and will never use them again. My dislike comes from working on documentary/educational shows, some of them features. As I said before, I dislike Sony's over-all philosophy, which is to create a "feature rich" imaging system. To them the more crap you can cram into the box, the better. Just look at the A7SII, it doesn't even know what it is... still camera? Video camera? Ultra sensitive night-vision camera? High speed camera? What is this thing? You can't do all of those things without HUGE compromises. It's no different with the more professional Sony cameras as well. In order to get those features, they had to heavily compromise on the design, mostly in the imager/processing department. This creates an image that myself and many other colorists find unsatisfactory compared to the competition of similar price. Yes, I completely understand the reason why ENG people own these cameras, they do fit nicely into that world. Yet, in my eyes the compromise shouldn't be about technology, there is no excuse to have all those features and lack different recording codecs. I'd personally rather have a camera that may not fit the physical norm's, but the best codec's and better imager. Think of it another way... nobody watching the finished product knows how nice your camera is to work with. All they care about is the final output. As an owner/operator, you buy the camera that fits your physical needs and maybe have a bias towards a certain style of camera as a consequence. Also, I haven't seen any television ever, without MPEG noise all over it. So already it's unsatisfactory to me because we're living in 2016 and those issues should simply not exist anymore, but they're right in front of me. It's why I refuse to own a television or decoding product for TV. I can't stand the fact this is what people are consuming and nobody is complaining. So I'm all for shooting with the F5 for television, go for it! Where I personally prefer saving $10k and buying an FS7 for the vast majority of people, you can argue the quality difference of the F5 is pretty noticeable. Honestly with the new Panasonic Varicam, Sony may finally have some decent competition a few years late. Panasonic has gone Pro Res all the way, but they still don't have raw capabilities internally, which is a real shame.

Initially sync sound used the 60hz AC motors to drive the picture camera and optical sound camera. Al Jolson's 'The Jazz Singer' from 1927 was the first time in a nationally released film. Many people had experimented with sync sound prior, but 'The Jazz Singer' was the first time the audience heard the dialog of the actor as well as singing. Originally it was a single mono track, with a live orchestra. Eventually the orchestra tracks would be played back on set from a recording and actors would lip sync. Remember, back then cameras made quite a racket. So any film recording audio had to put the camera in a box, or a blimp. This was very expensive because it now couldn't be moved around the set without huge cranes and dollies. The solution many people took was to record audio and replace it in post production. This really didn't come about until the advent of magnetic tape however, so almost all of the early sound films up to WWII, were all done with sync sound. After WWII, camera technology hadn't changed much, so people experimented with dubbing or replacing all of the audio instead of blimping the cameras. This led to the technology we now know as looping or ADR (Automated Dialog Replacement). Hollywood used this technology mostly to replace audio in scenes that had bad set audio, but would generally leave everything else alone. Other countries like India, China, Japan, where they didn't have the kind of money to build huge sound stages and keep things quiet, resorted to looping all the dialog. This is why you see so many classic films, with original language, but looked dubbed. One of the most famous examples of this Goldfinger, whose accent was so bad, the filmmakers replaced his voice. You see this work done a lot in foreign films where the filmmakers hire an actor who doesn't have a native accent and/or doesn't speak the language of their film. In the end, here in the states, sync sound has pretty much always been the norm. Sure there will always be occasions when things need to be cleaned up, like big stunt scenes where the audio is worthless, or even added lines with actors off screen. We always try to make the dialog sound excellent and it's very challenging. With the advent of wireless body mic's, better recording systems and quieter cameras, there is really no excuse to get it right on set. It's the best performance and most actors want to move on instead of coming back for looping later. Sure, there is still a lot of looping done, but set sound is still the primary source and has always been for this countries movies.

Just saying what my observations have been in the coloring suite.

Well for digital to really look good is a two step process. The first step is to take each frame of film and take a still image of it using a camera much like a DSLR. These systems are called film scanners. They have a mechanical movement which registers the film perfectly across a gate. It then snaps pictures of each frame and stores them in a compressed or raw format. The next step is to apply color because the raw image won't have any. This process can be done simply but it needs to be done by someone who knows how, it's really an art form. Once done you can then watch your material, edit it and then do final color. With big projects this process is far more expensive then shooting properly and coloring photochemically. Sure there is a lot of trial and error with that which can be costly, but it's still cheaper then scanning and paying for an artist.

Connor, are you going to focus it yourself or have someone else do it? I've had little to know problems focusing things myself with cinema glass on d5mkii and a simple $300 follow focus.

Remember the kinefinity is raw only, no other recording codec available. So it's a very limited market and its probably why the camera looks ok. Since the debayer would be done in post, you can tweak the cameras look much easier. So what does the camera look like in cinema dng without their proprietary LUT.

They do soften the projector already, most projectionists I've talked to have admitted to running focus softer to help remove the aliasing and crispness issues associated with digital cinema projection.

The Ursa Mini 4.6k shoots 4:1 raw, which is even smaller then Pro Res XQ. Yes, if you're shooting interviews, you don't need it. If you're running around like crazy, it's nice to have. “We shoot S-Log 4:2:0 right to the cards. The extended latitude of S-Log is terrific with the F3 and gets even better with the F5,” he enthuses. “I see log-style recording as a huge asset in documentary work. There are so many lighting situations we don’t have time or resources to control, so we shoot to protect highlight and shadow detail. For me, more dynamic range is always better. We have a great colorist and it all grades beautifully in [blackmagic Design] DaVinci Resolve.” That's a direct quote from their cinematographer. Again, if you shoot perfectly, it works fine. If you don't shoot perfectly, it doesn't work fine. I'd much rather have the safety net of a decent editing codec like Pro Res which by the way does have more dynamic range then XAVC-I. But hey, that's because I color all day long and I've seen how bad XAVC falls apart in post if you try to make too many changes. For television who cares... but believe it or not, some people make stuff for theaters with these cameras as well, imagine that! I will gladly post some stuff to show you what I'm talking about. I'm working on a doc shot with the C300 in XAVC-I by a top cinematographer and even though the camera's imager looks great, I will try to show you what happens when you recover the blacks.

Yep, David is 100% right with his numbers. 15/70 IMAX on screen is slightly north of 8k. Unfortunately there is no 8k distribution format for digital. So even though IMAX does have a double laser projection system which fills in the gaps between each others DLP imager, making a faux 8k, the source is still 4k at most. IMAX has been working on an 8k delivery format, but as you can imagine, it doubles the bandwidth, so the server required for playback needs to be a lot more robust. When they do accomplish that task, it will be the best projection system available today. It's unfortunate they dumped film so quickly because the last iteration of film projectors were absolutely amazing, but they went 3D and that upped the price and created too many limitations.

IDK man, I shot ENG for 15 years and I know how valuable it is. Honestly, if I'm going between a threshold of bright to dark or visa versa, I'd rather not have a stupid filter wheel in my shot, I'd rather change the stop and keep shooting until I have a moment to make that change. It takes 5 seconds to pop a filter in and out of a matte box and if your rig is so damn big you can't reach it, that's your own fault. The reason why TV doc's don't shoot raw is they don't care. Even your Bourdain example shoots 8 bit 4:2:0 which is outright disgusting, makes me wanna puke. Just the fact Sony offers Long GOP compression at 8 bit 4:2:0 on their cameras in this day where everyone is going 12 - 16 bit, is just outrageous. I never once said the F5 isn't usable. I simply said, if you're going to spend money on a run and gun camera, I suggest buying one that's cheaper which is designed specifically for that task, which is the FS7. Trust me, I would rather not buy anything, then buy either of those two cameras. I'm disgusted by Sony's design tactic, full of menu's, submenu's, imagers with native ISO's around 1600 - 3200 which means they bloom without heavy filtration in sunlight. I dislike the fact they've stuck with older MPEG standards that are no different then HDV (8 bit 4:2:0) and want to charge the customer more for RAW and Pro Res. I could go on all night, but to me the con's outweigh the pro's, especially if you count price into the equation. I know how much you love your Sony cameras and you're a devotee. But clearly as a shooter, you don't have to deal with what happens after you shoot, the post process which is a nightmare using MPEG files. I deal with it every day and if it went away tomorrow, everything would be so much better.

Not at all. I was simply stating that it's better to bring in someone to deal with the business side of things to take that weight off the director.