Tyler Purcell

I've already done a lot of work with it and have been impressed with pretty much everything. First off, it's super easy to use and very versatile. It scan's 2, 3, 4, perf 35mm, full frame and academy. The thunderbolt interface plugs into any machine with a thunderbolt port, though it does require high-speed thunderbolt storage, so a trashcan Mac Pro and raid is kind of a "must-have", which adds another $10 - $20k to the budget right off the top. The DaVinci interface is easy to use and it flat-out works. It allows for on the fly adjusting scene by scene or straight CinemaDNG or DPX raw capture to disk. Real-time support requires fast storage. It was able to do 15fps on our iMac using the internal SSD no problem. It currently captures at UHD resolution at any frame rate your computer can handle. The scanner does have a few minor hiccups. The big one is the registration, which comes from the perf. It's adjustable, but it's perf only, it really needs to be frame line based as well. I tried making that happen a few times during my few hours in front of the unit, but no matter what, it wanted the perf to get decent registration. At slower speeds, the registration appeared to be better. The other hiccup is the 16mm conversion, it's not very quick. They will have sound and keycode readers in the near future, the ports exist, it's just a matter of accessories hitting the market. Over-all the image is pretty good. I didn't have much to compare it with during my testing. It's far better then any real-time capture device I've ever seen. Yet, it doesn't have the refinement of some of the other high-end scanners I've seen images from. For a real-time scanner, it's by far the best product out there. For most applications, it will work perfectly. I'm not sure how it will look on the big screen, I will be doing further work with it come the new year. However, I have a feeling it won't beat the other top scanners out there, mostly due to the imager type and registration system. I maybe wrong, it's just a feeling I have. For the price however, it's a mighty good deal and I'm sure they'll sell very well.

That's true and the are a lot of excellent "creatives" who are just squeaking by financially. My earlier point is about the excess spent on our modern films. Everyone can get paid a reasonable rate and the movie can still be good.

You can produce the film for 3M and take 2M for pre-production, festivals, marketing and distribution expenses. Honestly, if you can't market a movie for 1M, you've done something terribly wrong. You don't NEED to be in every cinema, just in certain markets. Advertise directly to your audience, not to the masses. Honestly, I don't know. I've been told by a lot of experts that schedule F and a flat rate of $60k, is acceptable for most actors who like your project and have time to be a part of it.

Actually, neither product was shot on the blackmagic pocket camera entirely. The first one was shot mostly with the blackmagic cinema camera, some of the inserts are pocket. The second one was shot with the Sony F5, with some insert shots with the blackmagic pocket. The pocket camera has a softer image, you can tell right away what was shot with it. You can also tell most of those two video's were shot with larger imager cameras because of the depth of field and very much a global shutter. Here are some of my examples of stuff shot with the pocket camera. I actually don't do much post color work, I believe in showing native camera color and not messing too much with the result.

On mac's, simply enter full screen mode in quicktime. Then hit command + shift + 3 and it will screen capture (take a still image) of the quicktime frame. It puts the stills on the desktop and you can title them anything you want. Yes, they're pict files, but they're easy to batch convert to jpeg's using photoshop, graphic converter or any other automated batch converting product.

Even my little self-financed documentary has better IMDB reviews and has been seen around the world at festivals and has been picked up by Criterion for VOD/DVD release. Yet I don't come on here bragging; "I am the only forum member who has produced and sold movies entirely as an independent producer, and had all four titles placed in top distribution outlets, and sold globally." In my eyes, I'd rather have a really good product that very few people see, then a crappy product that very few people enjoy. It's great to have people on here like yourself with a lot of experience making films, I applaud your ability to put deals together and make a product. However, just because you've made a bunch of direct to VOD/DVD movies, doesn't make you the forum's only decent feature filmmaker.

I've never heard of your films.

I think it's too late to fix the system. - When an cinematography oscar is given to a movie shot on a green screen - When most movies are shot on 2D, yet the studio's spent millions doing crappy 3D conversions so they can charge more money at the box office. - When theaters charge minimal $14 for a mid-day showing. - When the price of marketing has sky-rocketed. - When actors salaries are off the chart - When studio's are only interested in making "safe" films. Unique stories are left for television. - When every single movie MUST have visual effects and a substantial post budget. - When union's are pushing to make crew millionaires. - When there are no tax shooting incentives. - When most films go directly to video and disappear forever. These are the indicators of a non-sustainable industry. The only way to fix it, is to find an investor willing to put in the money necessary. Start a new distribution company, produce extremely low-budget non-union shows with Sag schedule F. Tell interesting stories that top actors will be interested in being involved with. Use more target audience and cost effective marketing strategy instead of going after the broad audience. Focus on small numbers instead of big numbers. Don't shoot anything in Hollywood, tell stories from other places of the world. Keep the budgets under 5M and work out special deals with theaters chains directly for distribution, don't let the 300lb gorilla studio contracts boss you around. It's all doable and if you do it right, I think things could change.

You mean it's an excuse for people not to watch older movies. If the original film is good or in this case, one of the most iconic pieces of cinema, the studio only needs to re-release it in the theaters. A) It costs a lot less money. B) People would go to see it. C) It will show the world that re-makes aren't important. Sure, there are MANY older films which suck (unrecognized as a consequence) and re-making them with maybe a better cast, tighter script or better production values, could be an option to telling a story nobody knows about. However, ICONIC films, should be screened in theaters on a regular basis to remind people just how good films can be. The content owners don't want to do that however because imagine if cinema go'ers saw the original 'Ben Hur' restored in 70mm and projected all over the world. They may think twice about seeing the crap we push into the faces of today's audiences. Actually it's not... Theatre is a totally different animal and people tell the same stories over and over again on a regular basis. This is because you can't just grab the DVD of a certain performance and watch it back. With cinema, there is instant access to older content exactly the way it was originally performed. So it's a complete waste of resources to re-create something that already exists if it was properly produced to begin with and easily accessible. Where I agree that remaking 'Point Break' is retarded, I personally wouldn't consider it a classic in anyway. It's a perfectly fine piece of entertainment, but at the time was just another hollywood action film and today, is no more. The story of a government agent infiltrating a criminal organization, to be converted into a criminal themselves, is a plot that's been used for decades over and over again in cinema and television. So even in it's original form, it wasn't anything truly special. It takes filmmakers with real balls to make original content entertainment. People who resort to churning out re-makes or future date sequels, have no imagination. Some day the re-makes, re-boots, sequels and tent pole entertainment will stop. Until then, there isn't much to watch at the cinema.

The resulting file needs to be interlaced. If it's progressive, there will be freeze frames instead of blended fields. In FCP7, you simply put your 24p clip into a 29.97 sequence with an interlaced codec like Pro Res. Then export "same as source" and you should be fine.

Sure and most of those people aren't trying to be filmmakers. Most modern audiences would find 'Ben Hur' boring because there is substantial meaningful dialog throughout which requires paying attention and the film is pretty long. Today's blockbusters are made by committee, carefully tailored to include certain aspects in order to make money and trimmed to a short length to promote more screenings per day. What about the hundreds of thousands of scrips out there, most of which are new/unique ideas, that are waiting for someone to produce? Filmmakers today would rather re-make something that's been made over and over again, then tell a NEW story! Filmmakers today are so scared, they're only making "safe" remakes, very little unique/new material. 'Ben Hur' is a poor choice as a remake because to do it right, would cost too much money. So it's going to be another green screen affair where everything in the frame is made in a computer. I don't know about you, but when I go to see a live action film, I expect live action, not animation.

I think Union rates are ridiculous and don't do anything for the quality of the film, but that's just my opinion. On a $50k feature, you aren't paying the crew. On a $150k feature, you can pay the crew, but can't afford equipment or post production. On a $250k feature, you can afford the crew and equipment, but post is a struggle. With $300k, you can pretty much do everything without too many issues. In terms of cast, SAG waiver is $135/day I believe, right around there. Schedule F (which is what low budget films would do) is $60k. So put two decent SAG actors in your film, you increase the budget by $120k, which isn't crazy. Names help sell, but if the product is crap, it's not going to help.

If I'm very careful with my metering and are forced to shoot one or two stops under, I will fix it in post. Much more then that and you're really pushing the imager's capability on scanner. You'll start to get digital noise, rather then just film noise. Anything over 2 stops, I'd absolutely push the stock to make up for it. Anything under and you'll probably be OK in DI.

Agreed... and this is something A LOT of producer and directors struggle with. It's as if they're only in the industry because they stumbled upon a job opening and took it. The worst part is, people who DO have stories to tell, are sometimes completely unable to tell them. I'm kinda in the same boat. It's hard to raise $50k and credit cards aren't the solution because who says a $50k film will ever be sold? Honestly, I've done a lot of budgeting as of recent and the minimal you can spend on a feature is around $250 - $300k. That's paying everyone, that's shooting for a decent amount of time and having the right equipment. Plus, nobody is going to give you that money without a track record. Even if it's a bunch of shorts that are good, you need to have something in the can, IMDB credits, the whole 9 yards.

Putting 3:2 pulldown into a 24fps clip is actually very easy. FCP, AE, Premiere and Avid can do it on export from a 24 or 23.98 sequence.

Fly down to L.A. and see it at the Cinerama Dome. That theater is one of three in this country designed for that 70mm anamorphic format.

Yea, like a tight rock band. On a film set, if everyone is trying to learn how each other works, the director can be side tracked with ancillary things that pull them away from the actors. So it's great to have a tight crew, that doesn't need any real guidance, so the director can focus on their actors and telling the story instead.

Which is very, very, very sad since it's one of the best movies ever made, was made at the height of the widescreen "technology" driven era. Studio's were working over time to get people back into the theaters. So they made some amazing epic films that would cost us $300M - $500M to make today. The stunts are real, there is no green screen, the sets physically existed and the imagery is unbelievably powerful. If more younger people saw some of these classic movies, they may push away from our modern green screen crap because it's so sensationalist, so over the top. 'Ben Hur' isn't over the top, it's realistic and that's just one of the many reason's it's such a great film. I mean, I'm "young" and I've seen 'Ben Hur' a lot. If you do anything in hollywood, seeing these classic films is a pre-requisite! Download the AFI 100 list and watch every single film on there. You'll be entertained, educated and understand the reasoning why a lot of our modern films are crap.

I just forwarded your links to a friend of Jay's. I doubt Pratt will do anything. Being a huge steam buff myself, I admire what Conrad is doing. I truly doubt there is another person who could take over from him and continue to do that loving work on steam engines. If I wasn't so young and eager to make movies, I'd contemplate it.

Hey Emma, So if there isn't a lot of film work, why would having a film education make you more employable? I went to film school to be a cinematographer, yet I don't have a "cinematography" degree. I just focused more on cinematography then other people, some of whom wanted to focus on writing, editing or directing. The piece of paper doesn't mean anything in the real world anyway. The only things that matter are your demo reel, IMDB credits and skill set. Cinematography is a trade that requires hands-on experimentation, mentoring and opportunity. Studying photography isn't a bad idea, you'll get the basic understanding of how a camera works and composition, but there is a lot more to cinematography. Film school kinda helps with this because you're taught the basics of cinematography, given actual projects to shoot and cameras to shoot them with. If you're constantly shooting stuff for other students outside of class (which is what I did), then you can build a pretty decent demo reel AND if one of those filmmakers shorts is seen by actual people, it could be good for you as well.

One of the things you're missing about The Black List, is most of those films which were produced, were written by people who's films were already produced. Yes, there are a small percentage of films that get picked up, but like everything in life, there are a small amount of college basketball players who wind up on a pro team, a small amount of painters who strike gold and like those difficult professions, you could be part of the 1% that make it through. However, it's such an arbitrary decision on what's being made, you almost need an inside man to tell you what the industry needs right now. As I pointed out earlier, it really has nothing to do with the quality of work, it has more to do with whether it fits what the studio's are looking to produce. So it's really by accident anyone from the outside gets their film produced. Plus... I can't get on the Black List because I'm not a DGA director. So that means, as a small-time filmmaker in Hollywood, looking for great scripts to produce, with good backers... I can't even see your work. A good piece of advice which may help is writing for television. If you wanted to be a show runner, write a killer show bible and the first season to prove how cool the show is, you maybe able to get meetings. Right now, the industry is looking for anything that's long-term, meaning a 7 season (16 episodes per season) show bible. It's a lot of work on your part, but if you could make it cheap to produce, have some great engrossing characters, you maybe able to get somewhere. Once finished, you could bang on some development people's doors and see if anyone bites. You want to be a writer/executive producer (show runner) though, you don't want to hand a script over. You won't make a dime off the scripts, they'll hire people to write YOUR show for you. However, as an executive producer on a good show, you may be able to stick around, write some episodes AND get that big royalty check for the next 30 years as your series goes into syndication. This will allow you to write feature films and make money from your TV show. I know it sounds like a hard road, but honestly most people who go into pitch meetings, don't have a show bible, they don't have a first season of scripts and aren't prepared to make the show fit whatever network they're at. If you are willing to do those things, that path may be more successful.

I wish that's how it worked. Production companies only care about making money. This is why most of the stuff in theaters today is poorly written crap. Most of the good stuff comes from writer/producer/directors, guys who get their own projects produced, not people trying to sell scripts to studio's.

The point is, you can blow 70mm up onto a huge screen and it doesn't fall apart. Plus because it's a larger negative, registration issues aren't as obvious. Even watching Interstellar's 35mm bits, optically blown up to 70mm was like watching digital projection, it was rock solid. In IMAX, the credit sequence at the end was so crisp and flawless, I had to turn around to see whether they changed projectors.

Sounds about right! :D

Dang, I guess everyone got mixed up then. Too bad. :( I mean it's good in another way, Panavision and Arri have all their 5 perf 65mm cameras on rental, so at least SOMEONE is shooting film!