Tyler Purcell

Yea, Yea how could I forget about 'The Neverending Story' EEK! Actually, they could have shot everything green screen and composited in matte paintings, but they didn't. Most of these films had beautiful sets, rich with details that are intensely realistic. Yep, with million dollar solutions and top people working on it, you can get pretty close to realism. It's funny you mention 'Lord of the Rings' because if you re-watch those films, the CG elements look like a computer game. They spent so much time building beautiful models and sets, just to ruin the experience through horrible computer generated creatures and composite shots that pull the audience right out of the realism. With 'The Hobbit', they gave up trying to do model work and sets, it's mostly green screen and it's unwatchable. 'Avatar' so well done, you can almost ignore the issues. That look cost almost a billion dollars in development and nobody has gotten even close since. The only reason why is because modern filmmakers are so damn lazy, they don't want to build sets. They want to shoot everything green screen and make the movie in post production. Please tell me, when was the last time you saw a decent modern fantasy movie? Heck, when was the last time ANY heavy CG movie was any good? Equal to Hollywood standards? For $25K or maybe $50K or maybe $200k? Compared to a $200M film? There isn't any comparison. The only films that need dazzle and grandeur are those which are so poorly written and acted, the filmmakers have no other choice but to prop it up with visual effects.

In a lab, it's always been the first step. http://www.apug.org/forum/index.php?threads/removing-rem-jet-for-ecn-ii-films-and-kodachrome.92959/

What I'm saying is; when you have no money (we aren't discussing million dollar movies) and you want something to be really good, you've got no choice but to follow the needs of your cast and crew. You have to work around THEIR schedule because lets face it, they'd much rather be paid some serious dough then work on your film for peanuts. I know this sounds repetitive and stupid, but I'd rather have a screwed up schedule in order to get a B+ actor, then a perfect schedule for an unknown one. Actors are the heart and soul of a piece and when you're making a no/low budget film, you really can't afford good actors. So you cheat and put them in bit/small, one day shoot roles. 'Legend', 'The Princess Bride', 'Brazil', 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail', 'The Adventures of Baron Munchausen', 'Time Bandits', 'The Wizard of Oz', 'Labyrinth', 'The Dark Crystal' and 'Willow' to name some of my favorites. Yes, some of them have very brief composite shots of photographed elements. Munchausen has a very famous green screen scene with Robin William's head flying around for instance. Willow has a few miniature characters that are composited into certain shots, but all the elements were photographed in camera. So yes, it's absolutely possible to do almost everything practical and if you need to do some compositing of different in-camera photographic elements, so be it. However, building a 3D world around characters standing in front of a green screen, that's really a cost saving measure. Fantasy should be broken down into two categories; Live Action and Animated. If you're making a 'Labyrinth' or 'Legend' you are making a live action film. If you're making a 'How to Train your Dragon' or a 'Shrek' you're making an animated films. Many of the lower-budget projects that mixed live action with heavy VFX worlds, failed to succeed at the box office. Obviously your project has a lot less on the line then say 'Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow' which was a complete bomb, even though it was very entertaining.

I'd say most projects are not initially designed to be sold commercially. That doesn't preclude them from eventually selling, but it just means the filmmakers were simply trying to make a project and see what happens with it after they are done. Not the best forward thinking, but hey that's how you start. Again, most of the stuff I've worked on in the last 2 years has not been made with buddies and have been developed from the ground up for distribution. Everyone on the crew was paid a decent rate and everyone got a personal check from the producer. One of those projects has an associated LLC, but no insurance or legal documents. Even that person I got personal checks from and it has distribution already lined up. Mind you, we're talking hundreds of thousands of dollars spent, not a twenty grand. You could say they're stupid, but guess what? This is what people do around this town. Well, that's what separates you from the guys who really want their end result to be special. It's probably why you're making a green screen CGI movie, so you can have much more control for a lot less money. I'm the opposite, I don't alter anything in post production (outside of basic color), what's shot through the lens is what's on screen. It makes for trickier production, but the satisfaction is far greater. I think that's what most people consider "production", rather then a bunch of people on a green screen stage or talking heads being interviewed. Also, to your prior "credentials", sorry man, but you don't really have enough experience. You will learn young padawan, there is so much more to this then the business side of things.

Well, there are only an extremely myopic group of people who make money off their "art" anyway. Most people who work in the film/television industry are skilled tradesmen, who are paid to do a job. They have no financial or personal stake in the project. They are hired to do a job and when they're done, they move onto the next job. So it really doesn't matter if it's a short film, documentary, narrative or feature, "artists" trying to survive only off their "art" are always going to struggle. At the same time, there are plenty of people making short-subject content on youtube who have made millions.

Who said anything about not having insurance? You need insurance to rent equipment anyway... Insurance doesn't cover negligence. If your gaffer orders an assistant to hang a light on a rickety ladder and the ladder collapses (because it's junk)... insurance will cover the medical bills, but the filmmaker will absolutely have a lawsuit on their hands for negligence, with or without signed liability documents. If Joe burns his hand, it's his own damn fault. This is why you hire crew who takes care of themselves. Insurance should only be used if there is a catastrophe of some kind. Right, the court will drag you in no matter what. If you have a no/low budget "production" company with no assets, you will STILL personally be paying for court. LLC protection only goes so far and if you LOOK legitimate to the court and do some shady things in making your movie, you will be in even bigger trouble. You just don't live in reality. If no/low budget filmmakers had to get permits, file for LLC, get insurance and deal with legal documents, they'd not bother making a movie. In fact, most of the shows I've worked on, were done in less time then it takes to file and receive those documents back from the state. So in reality, you either make your production by just doing it, or you don't make your production because you can't afford to wait or pay for poop. Heck, I'm working on a short right now that has some decent well known cast in it. We can't strike permits because we have no idea when that cast will be available. They call us at noon and say "how about today at 3". What do you say? Let me get a permit? Dude, it takes days to get a permit and all your ducks have to be in a little row. We don't have time to even find the ducks, we're just scrambling to get the thing made. This is the REALITY of no/low budget shoots. If you have money, you're forced into doing the right thing because the money people will make that happen. If your product is destine for real distribution, you need those legal documents in order to sell it. I've been apart of productions on both sides and honestly, it's a pain in the ass to do everything right. The problem is, what you say here only perpetuates the real problem, which is people being responsible for their own actions. Good responsible people shouldn't need any legal documents, corporate entity or insurance to make a production together. Find crew people who are responsible for their own actions, pay them well, go have fun and make a movie. Put the little bit of money you have ON SCREEN. I have not been sued and I won't be because it's all about being smart and covering your ass. Besides, who is going to catch you in the middle of the forrest making a little production with some friends? The forrest ranger is just going to ask you to leave. Would the other crew tattletale on you if you? I doubt it and even if they did, it's just hearsay. Umm, no... if you caught the forrest on fire and somehow your caught, you're still going to court. Film set? Who said anything about working on a film set. You aren't working on a "film set" with a no/low budget production. You are nabbing a shot very fast and moving on to the next one. You don't have time to setup anything that's going to hurt anyone. Plus if your crew takes responsibility for their own actions like adults should, then there won't be any problems. The limited issues you may run into, can be solved by being straight forward and taking care of them outside of insurance. Heck, if I had scratched someone's floor and there was a big problem that came from it, I would simply pay my buddy to go fix it. I would even help if need be. That's being responsible for your mistakes, that's what people DON'T do today, they let lawyers do it for them. The laws governing these things are only put in place to make money. There is no reason shooting on a public sidewalk should require a permit if there are no lights being setup and nothing blocking traffic. There is no reason a shot with a camera attached to a car, should require a permit. There is no reason a national forrest should require a permit either. The only reason a permit should be required is if you plan on setting up rigging that may disrupt the natural flow of things and if you're that big of a production, you've already got insurance, LLC, legal documents and enough money to strike a few permits. If you're a real filmmaker, if you need to get that shot, you will get it any means possible. If that means climbing up a fire escape with an actor to the roof of a building and nabbing that beautiful sunset shot, so be it. I can't tell you how many times I've done poop like that, just for the love of filmmaking. It's part of what makes it so fun! You have yet to make a no/low budget product from scratch. I've been making them for 25 years, 14 of them living in Hollywood, which is arguably one of the most difficult places to get away with guerrilla filmmaking. Sure, I've been kicked off private property, only to come back the next day and get the shot. Heck, one of my productions was shut down thanks to being in the wrong place at the wrong time. I've been threatened, I've been ridiculed, I've been badgered and verbally abused. Yet, I still got the shot, yet I still finished as many of those productions as I could. It's all about being smart, it's all about taking your time and waving the risks. In fact, personally I'm not much of a risk taker with my shoots. I know people who climb tree's and wait hours to "get the shot", I won't do that kind of stuff.

I guess you missed my point... When you spend months building a fan base of people who want to see what you're making, you have built what people want to see. It's all about connecting with an audience. You can make anything you want, but if there isn't an audience who is waiting for it, what's the point? This is the formula studios use to make billions of dollars. Plus, I've worked with people who have done this and been VERY successful.

and what kills me is; even if you do everything right and I mean everything, you can still get sued. There is no protection for negligence and on low-budget shoots, where you're just trying to get that shot in a hurry, there is a higher chance of serious error. All that paid protection you spent half your budget on up front, is almost worthless because going to court will bankrupt most indy filmmakers and kill the project dead in it's tracks, even with insurance. With super-low budget indies; find crew that are responsible for their own well being. Let them make their own decisions on what it safe and what it not, don't force any issues. Pay cash for work completed, under the table, low denominations, hand-shake deals. Impossible to do with named talent and higher end crew, but for no/low budget productions, sometimes it's what you gotta do to make it happen. Also... just because you have some basic college based law/business education, does not make you a lawyer. If you drew up contracts and didn't pass them through an actual lawyer for inspection and seal of approval, you'd have nobody to fall back on when you get sued. Plus, the only thing that makes a contract binding is if you go to court and defend it, which for an indy production is financial suicide.

Yes, if it weren't removed, the film wouldn't be see through as the coating is dark and prevents light from traveling through and bouncing off the pressure plate of the camera. The other reason it's there, is to protect the film from scratches.

There is plenty of money in making short films, you just need to make something that people want to see. The problem is connecting the audience to your film. So building a fan base early in the pre-production phase is critical. Its no different then making an indy feature. It's a lot of hard work, fundraising and getting people excited. Since shorts don't cost much to make, all of this work is made a lot easier. You submit the film to festivals, all from the money you raised to make it. You generate buzz at the festivals and when it's all done, you distribute online. You offer it for free if people watch an add before it. You make a few pennies on the hits from youtube. On a feature, this won't make anything, but on a short, you could theoretically break even if you do it right. I've heard of many people who have made profits off youtube from their short films. It happens quite a bit and a lot of them go on to make more shorts because the system worked so well.

I think he's just trying to get personal definitions of those items.

Yes, of course they do.

Ya know, I use to teach scuba diving, I've dove all over the country from the pacific to the atlantic and many lakes in between. I've taught many underwater photography and cinematography classes as well. Yet, breaking into the underwater cinematography business has been overly tricky for no reason. Sure, you can get smaller projects, but it's been hard to get anything that will pay well enough to afford the appropriate equipment. Since most of the low budget shows want you to have your own gear, it's kind of a catch 22. Like everything in this business, it's all who you know and honestly, if you can find work, then I'd go for it. Otherwise, there is no reason in my opinion.

Well, there are a few companies already making film stock outside of Kodak. The biggest one in the US is http://www.orwona.com/ The new one, which is probably not going to be working until 2017 is: http://www.filmferrania.it/ These are both professional companies who have invested hundreds of thousands making film stock.

Actually the use of LOG was used way before those cameras were even contemplated. S-Log in of itself is a way to compress the imagers data into a 8 or 10 bit package. Again, an "inferior" package because the end result is nowhere even close to the imagers actual dynamic range. 12, 14, 16 bit RAW capture is LINEAR not LOG. Sure you can apply a LOG curve to anything you want, but the imager is absolutely linear. The point I was trying to make in my original clearly "offensive" but in my eyes, completely accurate statement is that Sony's S-Log format only exists due to the inferior camera recording formats. This log graph shows the different formats compared to "ACES" which is liner. This graph shows the lack of dynamic range with S-Log compared to Log C from the Alexa recorded in PRO RES... NOT RAW. Clearly the Pro Res is greater dynamic range then the MPEG of the S-Log and C-Log cameras.

Hey Dom, do you think an old SD monitor with the unsqueeze button for 16:9 would do the trick?

Yep and this is what homemade film and home processing generally looks like:

If you're married, you're screwed. period. Again, living here has very little if anything to do with those once every blue moon meetings. It has to do with living in the film industry or living on the outside of the film industry. As a person starting out, living within the confines of Los Angeles, can open doors every day if you work it right. Well, if you wish to be an actor... you're screwed. So the analogy of theatre just doesn't work because the path to being an actor is basically non-existent. I know a lot of actors and I don't know ANYONE who acts full time as their only job. We're also on a cinematographers forum and we're discussing living in Los Angeles from more of a "technical" aspect, rather then "star of the show". The key you keep missing is that a little community theater back in your home town, doesn't help your career on broadway at all really. It's the same with being a filmmaker. You can make all the little movies at home you want, but if the right people don't see them, it won't make any difference. Remember what I said earlier, "qualified" eyes are the key to being successful. The catch is, getting those eyes on YOU and your work living outside of the industry, is like building a brick wall and putting a peep hole in it. Sure, if someone passes by the wall they can look, but most people won't. I know quite a few people in acquisitions and development for studio's and as I've said many times, nobody is taking a meeting. Nobody is going to watch the DVD you send them. Nobody is going to watch your youtube video either. The only way to get the attention of someone interested in buying your film for real, not just one of those garbage DVD distributors, is to know someone. The only way of knowing people in Hollywood, is to... ready? LIVE IN HOLLYWOOD!!!

Most of my P.A. buddies share a shitty-ass apartment and probably pay $400 - $600/mo for living expenses. They take public transportation most of the time and eat very carefully. So sure, they aren't rich, but they aren't crazy poor either. One of them has more digital cinema equipment then I do and is already prepping his first big short film on 16mm... I'm lending him the equipment and yes, he's a bloody P.A. Dude, I was living in a 2 bedroom, 2 bath loft for $1200/mo when I moved here in 2002. I then had a beautiful 3 bedroom, 2 bath 2400/sq ft house on a cul de sac in Valley Village in an upscale quiet neighborhood that was $2400 a month divided by three. Heck, even my current place blows the doors off most places I've seen in other parts of the US. Two bed, two bath, two story with 1000/sq.ft. garage/storage and 1000/sq.ft. secure garage with security cameras. Free laundry and utilities, $1650 split between two people. Think about it a different way. There are so many decent paying jobs here, the cost of living is outweighed by the potential to earn more. If you moved to Washington/Oregon... or even Maine. Sure you'd have cheaper living, but you'd also get paid A LOT less. In those places you'd be forced to work a low-end job because there really isn't much else to do. Sure, around Seattle and Portland there are some big businesses, but they are expensive places to live. So you'd have to live in the boonies to get the rent lower and what's the point?

If you want a beach view, yes... If you're willing to be 1 block from the beach, around $2500/mo for a 2 bedroom, 2 bath. Well, if you live on the west side, you won't be in too much traffic, just use Lincoln to get north and south. It's a pretty good throughway and most of the big studio's are just east, on the other side of the 405. You have no reason to live/go anywhere else if you live on the west side and work in the industry. I live in the Valley, so there is a commute involved if I work directly with the studio's. That's why my vehicle is a motorcycle, get around town in a flash since we can split lanes. People pick on this town quite a bit, but every time I go other places, I'm always eager to head back.

Well, even with the proper tank, it's still not perfect, not all areas are covered at once. You'd have make something that doesn't exist on the market today. Plus, the developing process is only half the story. The other part is the drying process, which is where things can get tricky on motion picture film because there is so much of it.

Yea, but ALL OF THE FILM NEEDS TO TOUCH THE CHEMICALS AT ONCE!!! When you watch these video's and see film sticking out of the containers, you're seeing film that will look different then the pieces still in the container. Super 8 is a lot cheaper then 16mm but it's still expensive. Visit http://www.pro8mm.com/ for more on pricing and such.

That's right, S-Log is it's own LOG curve, incompatible with every other system and looks nothing like real LOG, which even looks nothing like color negative. Pro Res XQ is the best standard recording format out there today. It actually doesn't work in REC 709, it has far more dynamic range then even the standard Pro Res codec's. I use XQ all the time, mostly to color Alexa shots. Yes, we use Log - C on the Alexa material but that's only as a precaution, rather then a pre-requisite like with MPEG formats.

You be difficult? HA! LOL :) I'm just sayin' it ain't roses and unicorn's. Actually, I spent so much time working regular jobs, I kinda forgot about making movies and stuff. I only really got back into filmmaking a few years ago and as you well know, it takes a while to ramp things up. I've got a stack of scripts both short and features. It's just a matter of fine tuning and picking which one I'm going to make first. The problem as always is... as a freelancer, I'm always dead broke! So I can't afford to even make one of my shorts. So fundraising is the only way and you know how THAT goes. So I just do what I can, make the doughnuts and on my spare time, work on my films. I don't regret what I did at all. I've done SO MUCH living in Los Angeles, so many friggen' awesome things that a young person should be doing. If I had known about the economic down turn before it happened, if I had been smarter with my money, if I had not been out to constantly enjoy myself, things would be a lot different today. My future self's advice to my younger self would be to pursue my dreams harder and stay focused on the pie at the end of the rainbow, rather then the crumb right in front of you.

Right, but again it exists because of the inferiority of the storage format. If the storage medium was 24 bit RAW directly off the imager with zero processing, there would be no reason for S-Log. Sony and Canon's incessant use of antiquated 8 bit 4:2:0 Rec 709 color space recording formats are EXACTLY the reason we have S-log.