Tyler Purcell

For that money you can buy a used pocket camera and some classic Nikon still glass off ebay. So I 2nd what Kenny and John said above, that's the right advice. If you're using the current version of FCPX, you can integrate directly into DaVinci, which is where you'd be doing all the "film look". You don't need any plugin's, just a sample of film footage which are free online and you simply matte it onto the final output from DaVinci. It's quick, easy and works like a charm every time. Rendering takes a while, but the end result is something that looks very filmic. The sample I posted above is a pretty good representation of what it "could" look like. Though I will admit, the pocket camera will look considerably different as it's a more cinematic imager. I'm not one to screw around with looks in post because I'm more of a purist, get it in camera sorta guy. If I want a film look, I generally shoot on film. If it's a good festival piece, you will be asked for a DCP which can be made in DaVinci. Nobody strikes 35mm prints for shorts anymore, that just doesn't happen and it's overly expensive coming from a digital source. Generally speaking, if you have something awesome to make, why not find the money through donations and make it on film the way you want it to be made.

Hmm, yea I have my doubts as well.

Again, the camera only spits out 60i without flags, so the moment you hit an external video signal, you're stuck with that frame rate.

The XL2 has a real 24p mode, it puts proper flags in. So it will have no problem removing the pull down.

I've tried it before, it's not very good at working with transport streams. The most powerful tool I've found is cinema tools, part of the FCP 7 bundle. However, it's a lesson in futility because there are so many options!

Sure, I'm positive you can crack the camera into doing all sorts of things, maybe even make coffee if you work hard enough. Point is, out of the box the camera is pretty much a toy. Anyone who goes out to shoot a feature film on one, really doesn't know anything about cameras because even during the HDV-only days, there were far better cameras for not much more money. I mean shooting with one today is kind of a lesson in futility because there are so many inexpensive used cameras which blow the doors of it.

Huh, odd... I guess the frame rate feature isn't 'unlocked' unless you go into cinema mode. I honestly never went to that mode because I color everything in post anyway and the last thing I need is more color tainting/enhancement done in-camera. I bet FCPX knows how to remove the pulldown, but it would be interesting to do some testing. The XAH1 flags properly, so it works perfectly in 24p mode.

Well, there are lots of problems with the HD30, a camera I know quite well. 1) It only does 29.97, so there goes the filmic frame rate look. 2) It doesn't allow for smooth aperture or focus adjustment, so there goes pulling focus. 3) It has a fixed lens, so even the adaptors won't work well. 4) It has rolling shutter issues since it uses an early generation CMOS imager 5) It has a very limited dynamic range with limited ability to make manual adjustments in order to make it function properly. Now, I've done a lot of shooting with it's big brother the XAH1 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/589903-REG/Canon_3238B001_XH_A1s_3CCD_HDV_Camcorder.html It's a proper camcorder, 24fps, fully manual; lens, aperture, shutter speed, etc. Plus it uses CCD's which don't have rolling shutter issues and have far better color separation then that early generation CMOS imager. The 8 bit HDV 4:2:0 color space file format is a hindrance, however with some post work (no plugin's necessary) you can make it look pretty good. Here is a short I made few years ago using free DaVinci Resolve to set a print stock type and Final Cut 7 to matte film grain which I got for free online. It's basically a 30 second piece of 35mm film that you composite into the shot. I did all of this work because the camera looks like dog poop without it, I had to do something or I'd just throw the project away and never watch it again. We recorded the audio through the XLR inputs as well using wireless mic's, but the audio was a lot of work in post production. You can probably achieve similar results with your camera... I just wanted to give you an example of what it could potentially look like.

So yea.. been doing some of my own maths, seeing things first hand (bored in the garage). Horizontal 4 perf 16mm is cool and all, but holy poop 3 perf is cheaper! EEK!

I've been working with Thomas from in70mm.com on updating his site with pertinent info and images. Here are some other interesting facts about distribution: http://in70mm.com/news/2016/hateful_8/index.htm • all 70mm prints (for platter houses) will be shipped out entirely assembled, none will be assembled in the venues. The prints are being built up by a selected crew working near Magic Mountain (Santa Clarita), CA. • the prints will be in one single transport case, custom made for the show. A large, flat case, similar to those sometimes used to transport Imax 70mm prints, back in the day. • even though the show will have an intermission, there will be only ONE ROLL of film. In other words, the intermission is built into the movie, with 12 minutes of black film (and DTS [Datasat] timecode printed in it) in the middle of the built-up platter print. There is no audio during the intermission, but there is a 45-second "entr'acte" music bit at the beginning of the second half of the show. • the film print itself weighs about 220 pounds. • with the shipping box, the total shipping weight is 350 pounds. • the total running time is a little over 3 hours, including the intermission. • BLSI tracked down about 120 projectors, including 20 from Cinemeccanica and some Simplex XL 70’s. About 90 of the machines are Century JJ’s.

Well, you only need the ADR for that one shot when the windshield is gone. All the other stuff when the car is buttoned up, you could probably make it work. However, being a sound guy as well, I generally favor ADR for car scenes unless the vehicle is on a trailer.

If you aren't seeing the windshield in the shot, it's really easy. Cut a piece of plexiglass to fit the window. Then make a small cut for the lens of the camera. Tape the plexiglass to the car using gaf tape. We used a thicker piece once and attached speed rail mounts to it and the top of the car, so it worked like a hinge. We then built a small box out of the remaining plexiglass to cover the hole left by the lens and camera. On one shoot, we built a little box out of plexiglass, glued it together and used that to cover the entire camera, so no wind would come in. Another trick I've used in the past on night jobs, is two pieces of plywood along the side of the hood (l&R)and a piece of plexiglass on top. Screw it all together which gives you the over head light looking down, but gives you a box to protect from the wind. It allows you to put speed rail on the plywood, to hang lights and gives you a lot of room to mount the camera. We tried this trick with a car in motion once and it worked really well once we put another piece of plexiglass covering the gaping hole in front. On a trailer rig, you can cover that with extra pieces of plywood if the wind is crazy. But from my experience, the half-box generally reduces the wind enough. Now sound is always a problem with car shots, doesn't matter if the windows are up or not. Most of the time I go into a car scene knowing I'll have to ADR it. So in my eyes, the sound isn't a big problem unless you're working with A list talent and don't have the money for an ADR session. Sure, there are rare occasions where the road is super smooth, the windows are up and the camera is on the outside of the car. However, I haven't been that lucky over the years, most of the time, the roads are beat up (car shaking), windows are down and camera is inside the car making all sorts of noise. Since audio is just as important as picture in my world, ADR is really the only solution to good audio in a moving car scene.

Both actually, assuming the car is on a trailer.

Actually, you can very easily devise a system to remove the wind, it wouldn't be complicated.

Great stuff, the way movies should be made, through the use of skilled craftsmen using their hands rather then computers.

There were some interiors in Bridge of Spies that looked like they were shot fast and likewise, the lighting wasn't very good, but acceptable. However, most of the film looked great, reminded me a lot of Saving Private Ryan, which was exceptionally shot.

The problem with single CCD imagers is that they actually have less resolution per physical size then cameras with 3 imagers because the pixel shift technology. Single CCD imagers went away years ago because the Bayer pattern CMOS imagers have greater latitude and aren't loosing light through a beam splitter like the 3 chip CCD's. There are pro's of CCD's, one of which is the single pulse of data which prevents rolling shutter, but global shutter technology has cured those issues on CMOS imagers.

Yep, children of men's sequence happens to be the best I've seen. However, they cut a hole in the roof of the car to stick the camera through on a 360 degree head, which maybe prohibitively expensive. A car trailer like Adrian mentioned is probably the best thing because you can do camera moves from outside and the car can be driving down the road, which is pretty sweet. I also think creating shots that look like they're inside the car is also slick. Ya know, taking the windshield off and sticking the camera in one of the corners of the dash like a go pro shot, but only with a big camera. There are tube lenses that are designed for this, which aren't too expensive to rent. But no matter what, car shooting doesn't have a lot of options without spending a considerable amount of money, there really isn't any magic.

Youtube is limited to what file's it can handle. I suggest making a .h264 10Mbps encode for 720p and you can kick that up to 15Mbps for 1080p. That encode process will automatically make the file 8 bit 4:2:0 which is what Youtube is natively. Youtube likes long gop MPEG files, but it doesn't support professional formats like iframe MPEG, Pro Res or JPEG2000 (MXF AVID/RED code). I believe Youtube restricts your account to 10 minute uploads unless you verify it. This process is easy, it just calls your cell phone or text messages you. Just do a google search for "how do I verify my youtube account" and there will be a link. Imagine youtube being like a windows based PC, where it doesn't support anything without plugins and throws unwanted hurtles into your life. Vimeo on the other hand is like a mac, it supports everything and the compression looks MUCH better. Pay for the best and you get the best. Vimeo uses the native quicktime engine format's, so that opens the doors for Pro Res, which is great. My normal workflow is to export a Pro Res LT file as my "web master" and upload to Vimeo via FTP (much faster) which takes a while since Pro Res LT is a very heavy format. Still, it appears to deliver the best quality and so far I haven't seen very much 8bit banding going on, which is something you see on youtube all the time and I personally can't stand it. Vimeo charges around $200/year for their professional services and it's worth every penny. No commercials, no royalties issues, FTP access, build your own playback embedding engine (very cool) and 50gb per month worth of uploads, which is not bad. I use it for all my commercial products and I feel it's the best service by a fair margin.

Yea, I'd agree with the pocket camera. The Panasonic AF100 wasn't really that great. People bought them because at the time, there wasn't anything like it. Today there are many cameras like it and for cheaper money as well. The pocket for sure looks more cinematic and closer to 16mm then anything I've used.

They aren't rails that screw into the front of the camera?

I have a feeling when we come close to the release date, we'll get quite a list of major theaters. I'm just concerned they'll be in smaller venue's which don't really make use of the format well.

Ohh another rumor says the Paris theater still runs 70mm, but again, just a rumor.

Well, they wouldn't have thrown those projectors away. Next time you go just look up at the projection booth, I'm sure it's still there. Heck only AMC theaters out here in LA threw their 35mm projectors away, most of the other theaters still have them. Here is some bad news about the Ziegfeld though: "Yes no hateful eight at the Ziegfeld. I confirmed this with management. The only reason you can’t buy tickets past the 24th is Just something technical. They will fix it for ticket sales closer to the 22nd . Yes all theaters have to keep Star Wars for one month."

The Ziegfeld appears to still have 70mm as of last year. http://www.in70mm.com/news/2014/ziegfeld/index.htm