Tyler Purcell

Japan's analog HD system went into service in 1985. We're on year 6 of HD in the US and Europe. A far, far, far cry from what Japan has.

It still costs quite a bit to press DVD's properly, so maybe they don't even do that... just burn one or two at home? EEK!

Sorry for the confusion, I misinterpreted what you said based on my own experience. Here in the states, 1080p streaming has been around for 6 years. 1080p BluRay/HDDVD, add another 5 to that. Heck, even the majority of modern/new content on television is shot in 1080p and broadcast in 1080i. Sure, some news outlets still do all their work in 720p, but in terms of physical broadcast, it's mostly 1080i in this country and has been for umm... 10 years? I understand your point of saying that 1080p will make more of an impact in the future, I do get it. This is assuming people will buy new devices, but I keep saying it will be A LONG TIME before they do. Anyone who doesn't have 1080p viewing capacity today, most likely won't for a very very long time because they will be keeping their devices until failure. Plus, internet speed hasn't changed much in 5 years and people who don't already have fast enough internet, most likely live in areas providers aren't going to be upgrading anytime soon either. The US has the worst 1st world country internet and it's not getting better. When it does, UHD streaming will be standard (because it's coming fast) and everyone will be using that, 1080p will be a distant memory for internet streaming. Now UHD broadcast? That's a long, long, long way away.

It's true, if all you care about is making a movie, no matter what the end result is, then you absolutely want to live as cheaply as possible and make your product off the grid so to speak. Unfortunately, most of us care about life outside of making movies and that's why places like California and the North East are so popular. Now, I've only spent 23 years on the east coast and 14 years on the west coast. But I've lived in varying places up and down the coast, plus I've been across the country by car twice, so I've visited a lot of places. The benefits of living on the coasts are huge, lots of talent, lots of varying locations and most importantly a critical mass of people who can help make your product happen. It would probably amaze you that I spend $900 on rent every month and if it wasn't for some credit card debt due to an injury I had and starting my school, my monthly nut wouldn't be much more then $1400... probably $1800. I spend $2500 currently and even though I struggle, I have all the equipment necessary to make productions that look good. So it's absolutely possible to live in Los Angeles, if you know the tricks, which include staying single and focusing on your work/business. There are many others, but those appear to be the biggest ones. Yea, we're not talking the same thing at all. In the real world of filmmaking, as in movies that get national and international distribution, low budget is anything under 10M. However, with a very clever and tight script, minimal locations, extremely fast crew and dedicated cast, you can make something for $500k that's pretty decent and marketable. In the real world, $500k is the cut-off, much below that is much tricker to get distribution, doesn't matter how much you inflate the numbers. For us, getting a B+ or A- lead actor for $50 - $70k and smaller bit roles for around $30k, is peanuts. Especially considering those same actors could draw hundreds of thousands on other shows. It's also critical to work in A to A+ actors for ONE or TWO day shoots. Maybe the bar tender, maybe the bouncer, maybe the best friend at work, maybe the cop, etc. Those you'd pay $5 - $10k for and you can get quite a bit of interest if they like your script and believe in your project. And when you're done with that $25,000 FEATURE film, what will you do with it? Who is going to buy it? Friends, relatives, maybe Facebook users? Getting your product out there is the most critical part otherwise, you'll just be making the same projects over and over again. It's the old saying, if a tree falls in a forrest and there is nobody around to hear it, does it make a sound? Same thing here, if nobody sees your productions, then how will you grow as a filmmaker? I tell all my film students the same thing... Spend your money making really good short films and things like scripted music video's for decent bands that will be seen by a lot of people. Write non stop, put together shoots weekly and flood facebook, youtube and vimeo with really exceptional content. Have a minimal of three easy to make feature scripts done with story boards, budgets, realistic actors that COULD work with your budget and maybe some deal memo's if you wish to get any traction. Then it's all about finding small investment to make it happen. But without your name being synonymous with something the investor may know, you're never going to move forward as a writer/director. That's my "tip" for today and to make that work, requires living in and around Hollywood, where producers are constantly looking for the next big thing and you may just be it. Ohh and feature docs? Good luck! That's a totally different world and in my view, a waste of time unless you're planning on giving it away. There are so many unbelievably well produced doc's on the market, you'd have to outspend, out edit and out content them to even make sense. I'm always working on feature docs for a myriad of different producers and it always saddens me to realize most of them will never see the light of day. :(

And people do it all the time! It's nuts! I've personally invested in 1080p digital cameras and presentation devices for this exact reason. I personally don't want to be involved in the evolution, it doesn't interest me at all. I want to make content and when you add complications like 4k, it's no longer fun because the cost factors skyrocket. Ohh the average consumer doesn't care, let alone want. The vast majority of people would still be happy with their CRT's had the government not forced digital onto everyone as a way to boost sales for that industry. As a side note, just wait for electric auto-pilot cars. I bet our government will ban older cars from being on the highways to boost sales of new vehicles. For sure. I mean you watch the content you want to watch. However, quite a bit of people have bit onto the UHD bug and currently own UHD monitors. So they will be wanting to show them off and the only way is to have UHD content. The web providers are working hard to deliver that, where everyone else is dragging their feet. I'm ok because it's just TV for gosh sakes, who cares what it looks like, it's mostly commercials anyway. IDK about that, we've had bigger and bigger budgets for TV and film in the last few years then we've ever had.

To me that means it's not here now because if it were, it would be making an impact. Well, I'm here to say, unless someone uploaded something in less than 1080p, everything I watch is 1080p or better. Unlike disk formats which require special pieces of hardware to play them, computers are don't require such things to function at different resolutions. Now I'm not a windows/PC guy... so I don't know how those devices function and they aren't even on my radar. I have three computers; 2010 Mac Mini, 2008 Mac Pro Tower and 2009 Macbook Pro, all of them running antique operating systems and all playback 1080p Pro Res, .h265, Vimeo, Youtube, Netflix, Hulu and any other streaming service, perfectly fine. I even stream live races from Europe in 1080p every weekend flawlessly. I didn't pay for 1080p , 2k or 4k streaming. All of a sudden those technologies became available and the same devices I've owned for years, appear to play them back fine. Sure I have decent internet. Sure I have a decent wireless router. Sure I understand how to maintain my computers and they have plenty of memory. Yet, they're pretty darn old in the grand scheme of things and none of my computers were "top of the line" when released originally. Now... I do completely understand the vast majority of people, don't understand this technology. I'm FULL aware of that. However, that doesn't mean it somehow doesn't exist. It does exist and if you own old windows computers that can't play it back, that's not the fault of the content providers, that's the fault of the end user not keeping up with technology.

Well, that's what the content producers are aiming for, a way to differentiate themselves from broadcast television. If it's the availability of commercial free 4k content, so be it. Sure, the vast majority of people don't know what that means, nor do they care. However, those that do care, will make every effort to make it a reality. Now, I'm a pretty big tekkie, but I don't have the money for fancy things. My decade long investment was in a decent surround sound system, high def cinema-grade, color calibrated DLP projector, Mac Mini and BluRay player HDMI sources. It's a great little kit, works better then BluRay because there is far more control and finding content is a three second click away online.

It depends on the age group. I've noticed a lot of older people, don't consider the internet as their first source for anything. News papers and broadcast, are the news sources for them. Heck, when my dad wants to know about traffic, he listens to AM radio, instead of grabbing his computer and checking the traffic online. By contrast, younger people go to the internet as their first source for everything. Since they are the next generation, it's clear to me the internet will be the future and will dominate completely. The only reason it doesn't dominate everyone today is because a legal single source for all content doesn't exist today. Youth have found a way to bypass those issues and get any content at any time. So yes, the internet does entirely dominate, but it depends on how far you're willing to go. DVD's are to the point of extinction here in the US. Sure, but my point is the content exists and is streaming in resolutions up to 4k, how the user chooses to stream it is almost irrelevant. So to say 1080p will be coming soon, doesn't make any sense since it's the USER that's limiting the ability to get that resolution, not the content streamer/provider. Yea it's quite an interesting codec, it doesn't work well though. I have nothing but problems with their service and if it wasn't for the fact it's connected to google so tightly, I would never use it. Vimeo is a far better service, I never have any problems with it and at 1080p, it looks far better then youtube.

I'd have a spare gate because it's a very common wear item on that camera. I'd also buy a few backplates for the magazines, to insure they don't fail on you and need replacing up the road. Obviously a spare movement would be nice, but it's less of a wear item then the gate and pressure plate.

DCP is more likely to playback smoother on the server then Pro Res on a computer. Today, you can make DCP's for free using Blackmagic's DaVinci Resolve.

Internet already dominates. I've already streamed 4k material off Netflix, youtube, vimeo and the vast majority of content I stream from other sites is 1080p. Rumors are ALL Amazon, Netflix and Hulu original content will be 4k streaming by the end of this year, as they're all shooting in 4k as a way to differentiate themselves from broadcast. What kills me about the VP9/10 codec's is that they require substantially more processing power to playback. So sure, they're more efficient bandwidth wise, but if your computer can't process the data, it won't playback. VP9 is what Google uses and let me tell you something, even with a 300Mbps pipe and a pretty fast computer (8 core 2.8ghz) it's nearly impossible to playback youtube in 4k, yet .h265 plays back fine. This is why I use Vimeo for all of my content distribution, it flat out works.

Nice work guys! I really like your stuff David, it's a great idea and with the retro movement, it really has a nice place in today's modern age. I'm shocked you got the vows out of one roll of film. I assume you had to cut before the rings, but was that to change cartridges?

Yea, I do most of my work in 1920x1080 and my pretty powerful Mac Pro system with high speed raid drives can barely deal with it. I've set up numerous post houses around LA and everyone sends their low-res offline edits with EDL's to shop's like FotoKem to conform for finishing because they can't afford the appropriate storage and CPU's. This is part of the reason so many people finish in 2k, it's just a lot simpler and "good enough". The problems I have with shooting in 4k and finishing in 2k, is that you don't give the audience anything different then what they can watch at home on their own TV's. Also, 20 years from now when someone buys the library your film is included with, those camera original files are going to be LONG GONE. Nobody is storing the 50TB worth of camera originals for every single movie made, that's not happening. However, that's exactly what needs to happen if you plan on going back to the camera original for a higher resolution finish in the future. Sure, you COULD pull the selects only and store them, but most people aren't doing that. Most of the modern films are being put on to LTO as final products and the camera originals are being stored on a shelf on tape. Good luck getting those back 20 years from now, it's just not going to happen and even if the tapes do work, nobody is going to go through all that effort of relinking everything, recoloring everything and distributing it in 4k. No, they're going to upres the 2k, which is practically free! The frustrating part is, we've had solutions to these problems for decades, but we've moved away from them. Partially I suspect because nobody really cares... at least what's what it sounds like when I talk with the "big shots" at other post houses around L.A. Once they're done, it's off to Iron Mountain and wipe their hands clean. The 2000's have been the first generation of filmmaking that's lower quality then all the previous generations thanks to 2k DI and distribution.

But aren't those factors identical with digital? The digital world places an image within a confined space or resolution, but that doesn't mean the image contains that much pixel depth. Ohh I whole heartedly agree when talking about film. When discussing digital capture and finishing, things become a bit more confusing because again, there is no way to re-scan at a higher resolution in the future. So a lot of people are opting for higher resolution capture then the current presentation standards which max out at 4k. What they don't realize is editing, finishing and storing material with that high of a resolution in RGB quality for cinema presentation, is extremely challenging and expensive. A cut and conformed camera negative is a few can's of film that can sit on a shelf for over 100 years and deliver similar quality for MUCH less money. The problem is, people don't understand that workflow, they've almost forgotten the benefits of film because they've become so use to shooting digitally, they don't even contemplate the older technology.

Well yes Perry, which is why when discussing these things, we use terms like "camera original negative" and "4th generation photochemical finish", to try and define things a bit more. It's also true that film doesn't have pixels, but resolution is very easy to define with film using a standard ol' line based resolution chart. We can extrapolate theoretical pixel count from the line based resolution chart tests.

Well, it depends on the size of the screen. I can configure my home theater into a 14 foot wide screen with the viewing distance of around 10 - 14 feet. Full-height, floor to ceiling displays are already in development and should be out WAY before broadcasters make the switch to UHD. With OLED technology, the cost will be super low for this type of display, so the average joe can afford it. This is where higher resolution images come into play and why anyone is discussing UHD or 8k. In reality a standard 60" TV being viewed from lets say 5 - 10 feet away, is impossible to resolve anything greater then 4k. Since most people sit further back then that, there is really no way any of this high resolution technology has any value for the average consumer. Ohh and in terms of 35mm print quality, the data sheets I've read from independent research firms, have put 4th generation photochemical film prints at between 700 and 1200 vertical lines, depending on the origination stock graininess. Now, the tests were done years ago and there is no doubt in my mind if you shot an entire feature on 50 ASA 1.33:1 full aperture, you'd probably get a bit more resolution out of it. But from my research and even viewings of movies over the years, I'd say 2k is about right on for a standard 4th generation 35mm print. I have yet to see a study on 5 perf 70mm print resolution, but it's more then double the resolution of 35mm.

I had been shooting digital ENG for years prior to my first narrative cinematography gig on digital, which was in 2003. Back then, the alternative to the F900 and Viper was the Panasonic Varicam, which is what we wound up shooting on, since it was a direct to video release. So I really didn't think much of it at the time, it felt second nature to me. Also back then, there weren't very many resources about these new digital cameras. It wasn't until much later before the internet became full of technical documents and I started learning about the technology. I actually stopped my creative work for many years to become an engineer and developed digital workflows for many post production companies in L.A. So digital cinema has effected my life in a multitude of ways, far greater then simply a cinematographer.

Congrats Robert! :) Now if you see any XTR Prod's for sale, shoot me a line! :)

In terms of standard 4 perf 35mm negative yea, it's only really capable of around 4k. But 5 perf 65mm camera negative is around 8k. 15 perf 65mm is just north of 12k. Sure, once you strike prints and project it, the resolution does cut in half. Most theatrical 35mm prints are around 2k worth of perceivable resolution. So it's true that if you compare standard 4 perf 35mm which isn't even using the full potential of the format, it's about equal to today's 2k cinema projectors. I guess my earlier point is that digital cinema technology hasn't really changed much in the last 10 years. Sure, it's become more popular, but we're still stuck with most theaters being 2k, most films being finished in 2k (which means there is no high resolution negative to go back to for UHD release) and people discussing 8k as if it's right around the corner. From my point of view, film is the only fool-proof way to make your movie future proof. Otherwise, it's always going to be a debate between which is better... Alexa 4k or RED 8k. I say throw the K's away and suck it up and shoot it on film. :) Ohh and we're very much on the same page about digital technology, 12 bit RAW is the lowest I'll ever go as well. I see no point in going lower if you're making the investment. I'd rather have all that beautiful color space in 1080p then highly compressed 4k with the lower-end offerings from MOST manufacturers. You'd be surprised how acceptable 1080p looks in a normal theater when done right.

Yep, that's 100% correct. But I've found most people who ask about resolution are digital people, they wouldn't even contemplate shooting on 35mm to begin with.

ALl of this assumes the program you use to scale the image can do the proper math. Most scaling programs throw material away, they don't condense it.

There is a maximum perceivable resolution and screen size and distance are more important then pixels. My old 32" Sony XBR television with laserdisc source, looked great. However, take that same source and project it up to 60" from the same viewing distance, it looks like a big mess of noise. Take that same 60" HD monitor and put a standard 1080i broadcast signal on it, the difference is night and day. So that's a good example of how smaller monitors kind cover up resolution issues. So then you have to ask yourself, what will 4k bring us? Perhaps larger monitors, but will people want those in their houses? With the advent of OLED and stick on displays in the very near future, we may see larger viewing systems coming around BEFORE 4k is widely used at home. But people's displays will be limited to the size of the wall in that case and in the vast majority of cases, it will NOT take up a full wall and the viewing distance will be greater then it COULD be, because people are use to watching things within a smaller device window. What does all this gibberish mean? Really, 4k vs 8k means nothing in the long run because very few setups will ever be able to display that perceivable difference due to physical issues in screen size vs seating location. Now to the whole 4k vs 8k debate. For the record, broadcast television is 1080i and that standard will stay for quite a while. The reason is quite straight forward; cost. To stream a 1080p signal at 29.97 or even 23.98, takes up WAY more bandwidth then 1080i 59.94 which is what most terrestrial broadcast is in the states. There are still a lot of 720p and 480i broadcasters here. Plus, everyone recently invested in HD equipment, it's only been 6 years since it became mandatory. So it's going to be at least a decade before any major change is made and I predict, most big broadcasters won't be around by then anyway. Then you've got the HUGE problem of backwards compatibility, which there is none. Unlike 1080i broadcasts, which can be received by 720p displays... UHD broadcasts are of a different decoding system then what we're currently using today, so even our modern TV's can't read the signal. Sure, broadcasters can add another channel, but that's super costly. Satellite providers will have to cut back bandwidth of other channels to jack it up for UHD broadcasts, which is already a problem today. Web streaming will be the only real way to watch UHD content and honestly, it's a huge problem as well. Even with todays standards, streaming UHD material on the internet is a lesson in futility. Netflix caches/buffers most of the content in advance before playback because they know it won't stream in real time. Plus, part of the reason is server infrastructure, it's just not strong enough. The cost to setup 4k streaming is huge and you can only compress the signal so much before it looks like crap. Far better to run a 1080p signal and compress it less, it will look better in the long run. Finally, you've got Sony's failed UHD BluRay and steaming service. None of the studio's are signing on because they don't have UHD masters. It's a complete failure because nobody cares and honestly, I feel that is the same case about UHD across the board. See, the government forced everyone to buy new TV's, even when people were perfectly happy with their old ones. Most people are sick and tired of constantly upgrading and honestly 1080i is so much better then what they're use to, upgrading isn't even on the radar. So without the consumers jumping on board in droves like they were forced to for the HD roll out, UHD is going to be a long road. In the end, if you shoot something in 4k, it will most likely never been shown in 4k. You will make a DCP and be asked to make a 1080p version. It's that lower-resolution 1080p version which will be seen everywhere forever. The 4k version will be lost over the decades, like so many digital-only films have been already. By the time UHD is standard, finding your 4k maters will be difficult and since you can't go back to a camera negative to re-scan at 4k, you'll be stuck with whatever you have quality wise. Trust me, this happens so much it's not even funny. Forget about 8k at home, that's a pipe dream you'll be telling your grand kids about when you talk about technology failures. If you shoot and produce in 2k, you will save a lot of money and never see any difference with broadcast, BluRay or web distribution.

Well, it depends on your definition of success. For someone who wants to desperately work on a film set, it's VERY easy to be "successful" unless you have some sort of mental/physical issue which prevents you from following direction and/or are a bum and don't work hard to prove yourself. I know many people who went that route and were not successful, but they had those other issues. Most people do have a mental issue and it's not being able to stoop down in order to rise up. Very few people are WILLING to start on the ground level and work their way up through the ranks. Most people come to Los Angeles with a great deal of experience already and all they want to do is make their films. Trying to convince those people to start as a P.A., working 16+ hour days doing the most mundane poop for $125/day, is nearly impossible. It depends on what constitutes a failure. I never did the ground-up method because when I landed, I already secured work as a director, cinematographer and editor. I was already doing what I came here to do and even though I've been through many years of up's and down's, I couldn't work for $125/day at any moment in time, it wasn't enough money. I had to change industries in order to pay my rent. With that said, if you land here and you focus on starting from the ground up, living cheaply and meeting people, your success rate will be higher for sure. You'd be surprised how cheaply you can get A- cast. I work on low-budget shows all the time and the type of cast these producers and directors can secure because they're here in LA and its easy for the talent, is quite amazing. If your story offers an actor something unique for them and the script is solid, there is a high likelihood you could get them on board. Yes, you've gotta have a good producer, someone who knows people and is personally invested in your project. Outside of that however, the rest is gravy. There are literally hundreds of sub $500k features and shorts with one or a few A- cast members. The key is to nab B+ leads, recognizable names from television. Offer then SAG schedule F flat rate for the movie. Then fill in the bit roles with A- cast. This technique has been used a lot on lower budget shows and it works great. But it doesn't work at all if you're shooting in Colorado. You aren't getting an A- cast member to fly out to Colorado for pa few peanuts.

See, that's the great thing about California. All of that stuff is only a few miles away headed north. California does have great lakes, beautiful/picturesque small towns, lots of greenery and one of the countries best cities (San Fransisco). One of the reasons the film industry was stared here IS due to the unlimited possibilities. Next time you come out here, start in the northern part of California, above San Fransisco and head south through the redwood forrest, through san fran, down along the coast past Monterey and San Luis Obispo. If Los Angeles is all you've seen, you've really missed California. Right, but lets say you lived in South Carolina or Georgia, which have quite a bit of shooting. Both states tomorrow could say, hey we're done with tax rebates and then you're screwed. Also, you're heavily reliant on smaller jobs. The bigger jobs are mostly booked out of California. I agree that California is the place of crushed dreams and people who think they can get into the film industry by simply living here. However, there are really no other guarantee's anywhere else. At least if you live here, you can be on a film set every day from the moment you land as a P.A. If you're smart and get on a syndicated TV show crew, you can probably work your way up the ladder very fast through dedication and long hours. You won't get that anywhere else but CA and NYC. So if you want to live in the frigid North East to get LESS work, be my guest. The other way is to live in CA, get a poop stain apartment for peanuts, learn to ride a motorcycle so you can get around town quickly and start on the ground level. This is what the smart people do and many of them are far more successful then I've been, simply because they were willing to suck up their pride and start as a P.A. Where I agree that no/low budget films that one person writes, produces, shoots, edits, directs, are easier to shoot in other places. Where you're confused/mistaken about are the benefits of shooting in Los Angeles. The biggest benefit in my opinion comes from the available talent in both crew and cast. You can get top people for peanuts here in LA because there are so many good people without work. Plus, you can get A- cast if you're shooting here in LA. If you've got a great script and some money, the cast will come. They won't however, fly all over the place and deal with hotels for low money, that rarely happens. So from the point of view of your movie being a success, the #1 thing you need is a decent recognizable cast, which is something you won't get anywhere else but LA and NYC for low money. If you've got millions, it really doesn't matter anymore because you can deal with travel expenses.

I use Avid and FCP 7 with the Pro Res workflow. Anything over then 2k is a bit rough to work with in any editing system. So if you use a 4k workflow, you're absolutely transcoding to some proxy format for editing. I honestly never go back to the 4k camera originals, what's the point? Who is going to see anything I make in 4k? So where you're right, it's smart to work with Pro Res originals, I think you'll be pretty upset when you can't play multiple tracks of it at once in your timeline. It really requires TUNS of storage and super high speed storage which means a very fast computer.