Tyler Purcell

I've seen problems like this if you're using the Long GOP MPEG files directly out of your camera. You would have to first convert the files to Pro Res or some I-Frame format with real timecode, before using Pluraleyes. It needs frame accurate timecode to place things properly into a new sequence. This is simply because you're moving between programs. If it were all done within Premiere, this wouldn't be a problem. The moment you shift it outside of Premiere, pluraleyes in this case and back again, it will loose sync due to the lack of timecode. That's the only thing I can think of that makes any sense and I've seen it over and over again. I use Pluraleye's every day and it always works fine for me with original I-Frame material with timecode. The moment I give it Long GOP MPEG material, it stops working.

It's all about 3:2 pulldown and drop frame in the US. For broadcast, most people shoot 23.98 because it natively converts perfectly to 29.97, which is the US broadcast standard instated decades ago. Very few people shoot 29.97 outside of news/live broadcasts. In PAL countries, they don't have "drop frame", so 23.98 doesn't mean anything. Most shows in PAL countries shoot everything 25 and slow it down by one frame per second in post production if they need a 24 frame output for whatever reason. For theatrical, most people shoot 24 frames per second without the slight slow down. This is only due to the theatrical workflow, which is based on 24fps world wide. With professional audio recording equipment, frame rate is super important. On most modern set's, there will be a master clock that the camera and audio recorder will sync to. If the audio recorder is set to 23.98 and the camera is set to 24, they will drift out of sync. This way the lab can automatically sync the audio and picture in the dailies prep phase. The same technique is used on film dailies. A timecode slate is used which is synched to the audio recorder. When the slate is clapped, the timecode number of the audio where the marker is, is visible in screen. There is auto detect software which can read that timecode number and with all the audio loaded, they will automatically sync for dailies. So you can see how if you mess this up, it will really screw up your post production workflow. Not a big problem on set, but a HUGE problem in post. The key is to understand who you are delivering to; Broadcast or theatrical, then make sure you use the appropriate capturing frame rate.

The luminance is the base signal, it's the "Y" cable of your composite system. With composite, the luminance gets a compressed chrominance subcarrier frequency attached to it. The color carrier is generally half of the scanning rate, this is why composite doesn't doesn't look nearly as good as component. Composite was designed specifically for broadcast and almost all of the standard definition systems and video tape machines made, were based on a composite standard. Component signal separates the luminance from chrominance. There are three ways to do this, one is carry the chrominance signal combined, which is S-Video. Another is to separate the Blue and Red signals which is what we refer to as YPbPr, which has 3 black and white signals which carry the chrominance in them. The final way is true RGB, which of course is one cable carrying Red, Green, Blue signal. The most common NTSC/Consumer component signals are S-Video and YPbPr. RGB wasn't as widely used in broadcasting because most equipment was composite until the innovation of digital technology. When Serial Digital Interface (SDI) came around, most broadcasters switched over and analog as we know it, died on the vine very quickly. As a side note, there were only two component analog tape formats; Betacam SP and it's Panasonic rival MKII.Both recorded component signal on to tape, exactly how it went into the machines with no muxing. So almost all of the other tape formats were composite. Some machines came with an S-Video output, but it was only on the higher resolution ones; LaserDisc, Hi-8, S-Video and Betamax Hi-Band.

23.98 is not the same speed as 24fps. So what you monitor in has to be directly connected with the format you're recording. 23.98 doesn't make a difference on a film set because you should be recording in 24FPS.

Well yea, but modern software is a mess, a lot of it is coded very poorly. It has a lot of memory leaks and especially on PC's, driver conflicts. Plus the security issues that plague operating systems is very different then it was only a few short years ago. So generally the hardware lasts a decent amount of time, but the software is the real bugaboo.

People go about the process all backwards. Since your starting from scratch, first thing is the camera. Then the software that's compatible with that camera, then the hardware last. For instance, if you plan on shooting Long GOP MPEG, I'd recommend Sony Vegas because it's made for those file types. If you were working with Pro Res or RAW of any kind, I'd absolutely recommend Premiere or the newest version of Final Cut Pro X. Both of which are very good at working with Pro Res AND Premiere has native integration with Cinema DNG, which is the flavor of RAW the blackmagic cameras shoot. So first step, camera. Second step software. Third step "supported" hardware. In terms of the PC, the cheapest way to roll is AMD as Landon pointed out. The AMD processors are pretty good for the money, not to the level of Intel, but they're so much less money, it's kind silly to buy Intel today. There are a lot of compatibility problems with PC's today... the big one of course is Windows compatibility with certain hardware. Then of course, does the software you want to run work on Windows 10 properly with the drivers for your hardware? Most of the time, you can get things working fine if you like tinkering and don't care about being down. Of course, then windows does an update at night behind the scenes and breaks things. It's all such a real mess and as I pointed out earlier, time is money and if you spend a few days frustrated and maybe hire an expert to help, you could have just bought a pre-made computer.

No it doesn't make sense, but it's worth checking. I found the safety switches to be kind of finicky, especially the one behind the sprockets that's suppose to be tripped when the film rolls out. That one can get stuck in an odd place very easily, simply due to age. It may seem centered, but the switch isn't clicked.

The camera body alone looks to be twice the size of my LTR, completely setup and rolling.

If I recall, with the movement not at home position and the camera trying to run, the display simply blinks. It acts as if the film has tripped one of the loop sensors. Tho, it would make the most sense something simple like that could be the problem.

Nope, the SR uses a mirrored shutter, so there is no loss.

Since you have only two rolls of film, I'd go all out and do a 4k scan, why not? You will capture all that beautiful grain in full detail and with a raw capture from a scanner, you can retain much of the color as well. There are a few shops in town with scanners, but you won't find great pricing here, everyone rapes you. Honestly, throw it in a box and ship to someone who has a good scanner with excellent pricing. I'm not going to mention anyone, but the two guys that always come to mind are religious posters, so they'll be posting momentarily! :) Edit: Woot! Rob beat me to the punch! LOL :)

So if you load film, turn the inching knob, the mechanics all work fine. The sprockets drive the film and pull down claw works as well. If that's the case, I'd first look at one of the switches. The upper and lower loop switch and the kill switch between the sprockets in the back. I can't imagine it being a blown motor all of a sudden, that just doesn't make much sense. Riddle me this... have you loaded some test stock to insure the mag is picking up slack properly? I had a corroded magazine drive connector on my camera. The mag would make all the proper noises, but it didn't have the torque to pull the film. The moment you put pressure on it, the motor would stop spinning. Though my OLDER body didn't report an error, maybe the newer ones do?

Wait, so without any film in the camera, if you turn the inching knob, the movement doesn't move? If that's the case, I'd pull the movement out of the camera (very easy to do) and see if the movement spins on it's own.

It's hard to find exact specs on the digital cinema projector imagers. The manufacturers list DCP compliant max resolution, which is an electronics spec, not necessarily imager spec. Like a cameras imager that has "effective" pixels, DLP imagers can do the same thing. This is why you can send them multiple aspect ratio's and the outlying information is non-active pixels. In the past, all the cinema DLP imagers have been 16x9 with inactive pixels. They do this so they can move the image up and down/left and right electronically, for calibration purposes. I didn't know about the immovable curtains. I haven't personally noticed that before. If I ever go to the movies again, I will make a point to pay more attention. I know the last scope movie I saw projected digitally, the matte fit it perfectly. Of course, I see film prints all the time and those always have perfect screen mattes.

Ohh and for some examples... This was shot with the pocket and Rokinon 24mm almost entirely. There are a few cutaways with the 12mm, but you can't tell the difference. I use the 24mm as my main lens and it works great. Here is another one shot mostly 24mm. If you look at the interview however, that appears to be shot with the 12. Notice how soft it is around the edges. It's a more "filmic" look that works for the piece.

You have to remember, "tests" don't mean squat in real world. Plus, the pocket camera uses the center of the glass due to it's smaller imager. So you will be trying to make a lower-end piece of glass work in a situation it was never designed to work in. Unless you've seen material shot with the pocket using that glass, you won't know how it will look. Earlier you asked me which Rokinon's I recommended and I listed them for you. There is a good reason why I omitted the 17mm. Any of the F2.2 or greater lenses have very small elements in them, which is why they suffer in quality optically. I've talked to a few people who know lenses well and they've explained the problem in detail. Having attempted to use standard, lower-end still camera zooms on the pocket numerous times, I have always been dismayed with the results. Canon, Sigma, Vivitar, Nikon and Tamaron, doesn't matter. The lenses aren't designed for critical focus pulling and the zoom/focus ratio's aren't conducive to smooth operation. Plus, element shifting is a huge problem in the lower end lenses, where you go to grab focus and the element shifts when you touch it. I had a set of Canon L series zoom's that suffered that problem and none of the other brands were much better. I have used the higher end canon zooms on my Pocket before and optically they were great but the other problems were deal killers for me. I know you're trying to save money, but with glass you can't skimp.

Man, I'm shooting BTS stuff with my Bolex EBM like it's going out of style. Haven't dropped any of it off at the lab yet! I hope it's got some sort of image when it's processed. :) I'm even helping a buddy do match-work on Super 8. We've got some 80's super 8 stuff we're trying to shoot NEW material for, as part of this documentary. That's been a fun project, doing the whole home-movie style of shooting and getting it to match older material. I haven't even seen an Elaine close up, just a few pictures. It would be pretty tough to drag me away from an Aaton LTR/XTR though. Panavision probably still rents the Elaine because I've seen some pretty new pix with it. Believe it or not, until very recently, Super 16mm cameras have held their price nicely. In the last 5 years, the pricing has dropped, but demand is increasing and supply has decreased, so the pricing is slowly flatlining and in some cases, going back up as desperate filmmakers are buying for higher prices just to get their hands on something. 4 perf 35mm cameras are a dime a dozen though, the pricing for them is dropping very fast because people can't afford to shoot 4 perf. 3 perf and 2 perf cameras are holding reasonable value, but they are super rare. Many rental houses are holding on to them and so are owner/operators. Film is making a comeback for sure, it's just a slow process.

You're still a bit confused. Digital cinema projectors have a 16x9 1.75:1 aspect ratio imager, but the delivery format is scaled to make 1.85:1 the "base" aspect ratio. When a movie is at a different ratio, the screen mattes are changed to compensate. For 2.40:1, the top and bottom would change so there wouldn't be black bars at the top and bottom. For 1.33:1 the right and left would change so there won't be black bars on the sides. There are TWO ways to shoot for different aspect ratios... One is to use lenses which compress and expand the image (anamorphic) and the other is to simply crop the image in post production. When you use anamorphic lenses, you are using the full potential of the imager, all of it's pixels, to create a wider image. When you crop in post production, either from the top/bottom or sides, you are loosing pixels. Most cameras have a native ratio of 1.75:1 16:9. This is because most people shoot in that ratio OR narrower. So it only makes sense for efficiency, to make the imager the same size as MOST people will want when shooting. If you release your movie in the same native aspect ratio as the camera, you will then be using the full imager. Otherwise, you will always be cropping.

Generally, you want to meter the bolex at 1/80th of a second. If your meter only goes to 1/60th of a second, then run half a stop more open to compensate.

Well the issue with the DSLR zooms are the zoom/focus ratio's, they just don't work well for cinema. Also, the lack of a mechanical iris adjustment is a real downer. You're then stuck to specific stops in the camera, instead of infinitely variable on the lens. I will admit, the higher-end Sigma glass is pretty good. I was handed a camera with a set of Sigma zooms for a wedding shoot not long ago, client wanted me to use their camera. I was more then impressed with the results, no real difference between the Canon L series I normally use and the Sigma. Maybe the focus was a bit slower, but that was the only thing to complain about.

It's unfair to have people on here with a great deal of experience, be overweighed by someone with none.

The GOOD Rokinon's for the pocket are; 21mm 1.5, 24mm 1.5, 35mm 1.5, 50mm 1.5, 85mm 1.5. Then use a speed booster to get the focal lengths back to where they belong. http://www.rokinon.com/lenses/cine-lenses

This discussion isn't about what Hollywood uses for equipment. I only mentioned the use of Blackmagic cinema cameras because you said nobody uses them. To the contrary, a quick cursory google search came up with SEVERAL full-length features shot with the Blackmagic cameras. Yes, most of them are documentary style, which is MUCH HARDER on the camera and equipment then a closed environment narrative project. Heck there was even a nationally distributed feature shot on the pocket camera! It takes a lot of faith in your equipment to shoot a long-term project like that on a relatively unknown camera. It is true, the vast majority of people watching any product, don't care about the equipment used unless it pulls them out of the story. I find it very difficult to watch modern blockbusters because something technical always pulls me out of the story. Whether it's blatantly fake lens flares and visual effects to poor shot composition and lighting. Truth be told, the only person who does care greatly about the tools they work with, are the artisans using those tools. So here we are at an impasse. Two people who strongly suggest their own workflows. Neither workflow is WRONG, but one of them is formed from years of experience, in the industry, working on the ground level. The other is based on being outside of the industry, looking in from the outside and using technical specifications/consumer reviews, to make purchase decisions. My workflow and suggestions are pretty much proven by the 14 videos I posted here, one of which goes into some detail on the equipment decision making process. Your workflow and hardware suggestions haven't been proven in the same way. The videos you posted have little significance to your workflow, outside of the camera body itself. Where I appreciate your enthusiasm for the moving image, it gets very frustrating being shut down by a novice, time and time again. I may disagree with people on here, but that's based on my own personal experiences working in the film industry. That hands on experience is priceless, it's critical to growth. Every day you're asked to do something you've never done before. You have to come up with solutions that never arise in a controlled environment. You've got eyes watching you from all sides, you've got deadlines to meet and if the product isn't perfect, you may have to do it all over again on your own dime. These are the struggles filmmakers go through on a regular basis, sometimes hourly. This is what separates the novices from the experts, the businessmen from the doers. You're either out there in the poop, producing content, or you're sitting at home reading about it.

Ohh and just incase you didn't think Blackmagic Cameras were used on serious shoots... Mad Max Fury Road:

Did you by any chance use NON-IR safe filters?