Tyler Purcell

Honestly, 35mm works so much better in the CU/MS because it's a lot easier to get nice shallow depth of field. It's harder to get that with 16mm unless you resort to longer lenses and keep them all the way open. Big wide landscape shots, depth of field really isn't a consideration because no matter what the format, you'll probably be set to infinity focus and stop down. If you're going to do a digital finish, I wouldn't worry so much about stock matching color wise. So then it's really only down to the grain structure, of which 500 doesn't look even remotely close. So even though 500 has more grain, it's a different looking grain structure then 50D. Honestly, if it were my film, I'd shoot one format or the other. However, the other way you can do it is to use one format for one scene and another for a different scene to set the mood of the particular scene. I've seen this used before in a few films and it worked really well. This way, the audience doesn't really catch onto the trick because it can be distracting to change formats in the same scene. It's not such a big deal with larger frame systems like going from 35mm to 65mm, but when you're dealing with a super small image like S16, it's a bit more noticeable.

Nope, Perry did a great job explaining. Anything that says "BIT" is bit depth, which is determined by the number of bits of data that represent the channels from full black to full white. There are three channels we work with: Red, Blue and Green. If you have 8 bits per channel, you'd have 256 steps between full black and full white on each channel. This is visibly seen when you pull two of the channels away to create a black and white image. If you have 10 bits per channel, you'd have 1024 steps between full black and full white on each channel. This is much harder to see visually. Even if you make it black and white, you may see other issues within the image before noticing those steps. Though a trained eye, decent monitor and high enough resolution image, even 10 bit images can show hard steps. This is why the best digital cinema cameras shoot 12 bit (or greater). This has 4095 steps between full black and full white. At 12 bit, you're pretty much going above what most of our current presentation devices are capable of achieving. bit depth (8,10,12) (the steps between full black and full white) color space (4:2:0, 4:2:2, 4:4:4) (chroma compression) bit rate (Mbps variable) (Complete package compression) The only reason cameras have 8 bit, 4:2:0, 50Mbps settings, is because they simply can't process or store data fast enough. It's a way to "compress" the image into a nice and tidy, usable package that doesn't take up a lot of space. These three things are all you need to know when it comes to standard compressed files like Pro Res, AVC/XAVC, DV, .h264, etc. So if your camera shoots a compressed format like XAVC or you're delivering files after finishing, these are the formats you'll need to understand. Some other cameras have "RAW" shooting capabilities, which allow for full bandwidth on bit depth and color space, so those numbers are almost irrelevant at that point. The only number you worry about with RAW cameras is the bit rate, which can usually be adjusted.

BluRay on order! :)

I'm sorry, but I don't like to be personally attacked by someone who clearly came on this forum to do just that. He became a member three minutes before his first attack and the only posts he's made are flaming one's against anything I have to say, doesn't matter what. It's childish behavior and I've seen it on other forums, Youtube and Vimeo where it relates to people talking down about RED products. It's well known that RED staffers have gone around and attack people who don't like their products. This lead me to google search and find that our new member doesn't have any record in google. To me, that's a red flag and it's disheartening to think someone would either use a false name or claim to be something (cinematographer) they aren't in order to put someone down. Words don't prove anything. They're just your opinion, like my words are my opinion. Technology doesn't make better movies, story telling doesn't require a monitor so the director can see what you're shooting. There is something to be said about trusting your cinematographer. http://www.afi.com/100years/movies10.aspx Right, because sitting next to the camera operator on the dolly like they did for 80 years before monitors, that's an impossibility today. There is no misinformation. There is only opinion based on personal experience. Your experiences are clearly vastly different then mine. What you seek in a camera has zero relevance in my world and clearly visa versa. Meh, I don't like most digital cinema cameras, but that's because they don't fit within some basic guidelines that I feel are more important then how much over-cranking or how sensitive the imager is. RED goes one step further by using proprietary connectors, storage devices and codec. Doesn't matter how many companies build compatible products, it's still a requirement to buy those products, some of which won't work with any other camera. At least companies like Arri, Blackmagic and AJA are focused on making cameras that shoot standard editing-based formats.

I don't understand why you're here. There is no cinematographer with your name (or anything close to it) on google or IMDB. So based on your childish anger, I can only assume you're a RED devotee who is looking for redemption in all the wrong places. I absolutely love this line: Do you think David Lean carried around his B&W CRT monitor making 'Lawrence of Arabia'? nope Do you think Stanley Kubrick was watching a monitor making 'Spartacus' or "Dr.Strangelove" nope Do you think Orson Wells was watching a video replay during the making of 'Citizen Kane'? nope Do you think Michael Curtiz was right off screen looking at his monitor making 'Casablanca'? nope How about Hitchcock with "vertigo"? nope... How about Victor Fleming with 'Oz' and 'Gone With the Wind'? nope See, you don't need a video monitor to make a good movie. In fact, the birth of the DIT and video village, marks the downward spiral of cinema. Sure, I understand using the resources that exist in order to insure you "got the shot". However, some of the best films ever made, never had a monitor or replay device on set. Yet, somehow those pre-historic filmmakers figured out how to bash rocks together in order to make a movie look good. As a director, you wouldn't catch me even near a monitor when shooting. I'm focused on my actors, generally standing or sitting right out of frame, staring at their performance. It's the cinematographers job to capture that performance and if they say it's OK, I trust them and we can move onto the next shot. This is how movies have been made for decades and there is zero reason they can't be made the same way today.

My comment was in regards to doing the test with the F55. Might as well test what you have access to.

I too loved the film! Wish I could have nabbed your camera, was really contemplating it...

Blackmagic makes a complete package; 4.6k S35mm sensor, PL mount, OLED viewfinder, shoulder harness/handle and uses standard V-Mount batteries and storage cards. It has standard XLR inputs, built-in mic's (4 channel audio recording) shoots universal non-proprietary 12 bit Adobe Tiff CinemaDNG format OR 12 bit Pro Res 4444, which allows native integration with DaVinci, Premiere, Avid and Final Cut Pro. All of this for around $8000 USD, including a decent amount of storage. If the RAVEN used universal storage, universal batteries, universal I/O built-in and reasonably priced (cheap) accessory package, I can see some comparisons. Yes, Blackmagic could also screw the pooch on their new 4.6k imager, it could be utter crap like their so-so 4k imager. However, I know that won't be the case because they've made leaps and bounds in quality since their first cameras and have finally come up with a decent package. The only question is how close it will be to the Alexa, because unlike RED who are doing their own thing, Blackmagic seems to be focused on making their cameras look like Alexa's. Sometimes you don't want the grain of 800 ISO and can't run 10 stops of ND filters to compensate because you go between indoors and outdoors in a single shot. When I use to shoot on film, I had a camera body, magazine, battery and lens with screw on filters and a mattebox. Sometimes a sound guy would show up, other times I'd shoot MOS. Directors trusted me to get the right shot. It was so freeing to just grab the camera, throw on a mag and go shoot, no cables, no accessories, not even a follow focus or rails. People shot like this for decades before the industry came up with specialized accessories which are for some reason "must have" or you can't shoot anything. Worst of all, camera manufacturers have gotten into the habit of advertising lower prices and forcing users to spend thousands on specialized accessories to make their products work. They just expect people to except this trend, but in my eyes it's unacceptable. It's one of the reasons I bought the pocket cameras instead of something else. They're as "standard" as it comes for everything but the viewfinder adaptor, which they don't make, which was 99 euro's, which is not really a break-the-bank financial decision like most of RED's mandatory accessories. Plus, we're not talking about a $20K+ camera, we're talking about a sub $10k camera and likewise, it's designed for people who can't afford a $20k+ camera. So why should the sub $10k camera's which are designed to save money, follow the same crazy accessorizing patterns as their vastly more expensive brothers? It's just absolutely ridiculous! I'm depressed with the quality of today's digital movies. Most of them look like television, like an experiment in one way or another. Out of calibration projectors, over use of computer special effects, over-kill during finishing (color), pushing technology past it's actual potential to prove a point, it's hard to tell what is going on in a lot of films. They've turned into eye candy for the most part. It seems that most filmmakers shoot with digital as a way to experiment. Intermixed with the crap, are some amazing films shot on digital. "Skyfall" is one that stands out, Roger Deakins pretends his Alexa is a film camera and guess what, it pays off. So digital cinema CAN look good, but it actually requires less experiment and more "standard" filmmaking practices. Very few people are willing to do this and that's why I love film so much. Film has pre-determined boundaries due to camera size, sensitivity ratings and sharpness. It can easily mask poor filmmaking by roughing up an image. Even poorly shot movies, can look somewhat decent on film. All of that to say... I care a lot about these things. I spent the last decade working in the field of digital cinema/broadcast technology. I've been to the SMPTE meetings, been to the television academy meetings, I've been to the DGA/ASC meetings. I've worked with the designers/developers of many pieces of technology, so I could integrate it into the products I developed. So yea, when I say some something ludicrous, there is some reasoning behind it.

Maybe? I mean if you have the time and are there, you could just shoot the test. :shrug:

I've been around the country with ENG cameras, standard consumer HD camcorders and of course, my blackmagic Pocket camera doing documentary. If you CARE about image quality, I'd stay away from consumer camcorders. If you don't and you just need something to shoot with, the G20 will work I guess, but so won't an iPhone 6 in that case. I've actually used the G20 before (friend has one) and it's a real toy, images aren't impressive at all and they're .h264, which is extremely highly compressed and almost worthless for post production. I've been shooting a lot of documentary run and gun with my pocket camera and it's more challenging for sure, but it delivers far better images and if you already have canon lenses, you can buy an electronic speed booster (M4/3rds to EOS adaptor) and get the electronic iris to work, which is nice. Then all you need is a decent mic, but for dialog the Rode isn't great. I have it, works great for ambient, but wouldn't use it for critical dialog. I have a Sennheiser wireless kit for that, mounts right to the top of the camera and works great.

Yea, just shoot all the way open with long lenses. I use that trick with my pocket cameras all the time because they have no visible depth of field otherwise. However, with a bigger imager, you can achieve shallow depth of field with shorter lenses. That's why larger formats are so powerful, you can tell right away if they're shot on 35mm.

I have a 70mm spherical film planned in a few years. The price to produce a 2hr film on 70mm photochemically, is around $1.5 - $1.8M, with 2 cameras on set (A unit, B unit) for a 28 day production with a 10:1 ratio. You can get that budget down a tiny bit if you only have one camera or of course, lower your ratio slightly. The lowest budget I could do for 70mm was still around 1M because you still need a 4k DCP, you still need to pay a timer to make it and you still need dailies, all of which are expensive. So if your production costs were low, I can see someone making a $5M, 70mm film. The problem is, who would want to waste a minimal of $1M of your budget on the capture format? Investors would think you were crazy, so that's why most people still shoot 35mm if they're going to shoot film for theatrical. In contrast, 35mm costs are pennies on the dollar, 2 perf 35mm being about the same cost (give or take 10k or so) as shooting in 4k digital. In my eyes, the only reason people don't shoot more 2 perf is due to the lack of equipment more then anything else. 3 perf does raise the price considerably and 4 perf even more. 16mm is still the cheapest decent film format and honestly, in the future I expect to see more 16mm films produced. Mostly because people want MORE grain to show they're shooting film these days and 16mm gives them that, all be it, without the super shallow depth of field which is what makes 35/70mm so nice. I have a feeling film has already hit rock bottom. Now it's time for a renaissance, its time for filmmakers to embrace the technology for what it is.

I agree and after watching, I had absolutely no idea why it did so poorly. It looked good, the story was engrossing and rich with characters and details. The filmmakers tried to do as much in-camera as they could, which always gets a gold star in my book. So when you see how much of a flop it was, its really sad. However, 'Tomorrowland' had some HUGE problems and I can tell that people walked out disappointed, at least I was. I can't wait for the tentpole movies to be no more. I think that day is coming because the studio's are loosing a lot of money on them and actually making money on more regular films like animation. What bothers me is, most of these tentpole movies are for kids and teen's right? But the animation films of the last few years have been absolutely awesome. I think kids are kinda over animation yet again, it's not "cool" enough for them, so maybe they stay away? All I know is in terms of characters, story and even cinematography, some of the most recent animation films have blown me away.

Got ya, so 3x is generally the consensus for world wide.

It's funny they put "Tomorrowland" with the flops. It's already made money world-wide, so that's not TOO muc of a flop considering it hasn't hit VOD yet.

Yea, I saw that and it's not really an option for production.

A lot of consumer video cameras and DSLR lenses have servo driven focus. So the focus ring just spins and spins and spins, making it almost impossible to do repeatable focus. This is where a repeatable focus lens and follow focus are so handy. With a repeatable focus (mechanical focus) lens, you simply mark the focus for your shot with a dry erase marker or grease pencil on the follow focus ring, then when you back it off to find focus for the slate, you can easily go right back again and it's guaranteed to be right. I did a feature not long ago with DSLR glass and that was one of the biggest problems. We resolved by simply putting the slate next to actors in the shot, so all the operator had to do was pan over slightly and the slate would be in focus. Then the slate was in focus AND properly lit using the same light the actors were using. If you're shooting by yourself, you can easily lock down the camera and do this yourself. I've done it a lot, especially when shooting MOS B unit stuff where I had no help, but still needed a slate to identify the shot.

Yep Adrian is spot on. A pre-shoot conversation discussing look and feeling with visual examples (taken from other movies or drawn) if possible. I also feel getting the DP involved with composition is also smart, that collaborative process really helps. Figuring out the color pallet for each scene prior to shooting is also important. This way art decoration, clothing and lighting can all work well together. Things like that can really make a film more professional. If you have the time, money and talent, decent storyboards can be a huge help. I've never done them because I can't really draw and hiring someone can be very expensive. So in extreme cases, I've done video storyboards, shooting key scenes with a video camera and friends, to work out exactly how things will intercut prior to shooting. This helps save money on set and keeps your production moving along since you won't have to discover very much during the shooting process. It allows the director and cinematographer to be on the same page for every day of shooting.

Yep, great test! Wish I had a dime or I'd do the 35mm test! Maybe if I get into production on my next film I'll have some left over stock. :)

I like it, start with the F65 vs Alexa, just as a comparison.

Thats kinda what I thought as well. Labs stay in business because they have quick turn arounds.

Ohh absolutely agreed, it's just we don't know how much of those movies were manipulated in post. At least with film, we know over-exposed areas will have no detail, but they won't be harsh. Satsuki, my thought was to put a 10 stop exposure chart in the parking lot. Set the cameras to their lowest ISO without filtration, get the right exposure set via the scopes and then shoot reflective objects. Look at histogram and waveform monitors, watch how the camera deals with clipping. It would be interesting to see the F65, F55, F5, FS7 AND Alexa back to back doing the same test. It would also be interesting to see if you put the cameras down at their native ISO and used heavy filtration, how it resolves some of these issues. Wish I had more rental house connections to do this test myself, but I lost them when I left Boston. :(

I think you'd find most films to have controlled lighting, even outdoors in the desert. You get a cookie if you can figure out what I mean without throwing a hissy fit. ;)

According to Kodak, the closest lab is "CineFilm" in Atlanta. That's really too bad another lab closed down. :(

With any capturing medium, there are always compromises. Digital cinema happens to have a great deal of compromises, this is one of the biggest and has nothing to do with the cinematographer.