Tyler Purcell

Did you process the roll of film you shot? Did it come out OK? The cameras don't know how much film is left really. They have a mechanical timer that resets when you put a new cartridge in it. However, I just shot some Super 8 few weeks ago and the cartridge had WAY more film in it then the counter thought it did, like 10 feet or so. My camera said "end" but it was still shooting film. I pulled the cartridge out, put it back in again and kept shooting for quite a while before it was officially out. I know my camera works as well, so maybe the gauge on your camera isn't working well and it's figuring the film is out before it actually is.

Yea, but not really. The DSLR age has kinda come and gone as lower-cost digital cinema cameras have become the mainstay. The reason is quite simple... DSLR's are designed to be still cameras first. So they focus all their attention onto creating a still image and the "video" side is just another feature. So the DSLR's suffer from problems like rolling shutter effect, low dynamic range, severe highlight clipping and reduced color space from the MPEG capture. Since you're kinda new to the whole digital thing, let me break it down for ya. A modern motion picture film scanner captures an image in 24bit RAW color, nearly identical to a raw still image. Each one of those images is packaged/stored in a file format or folder, generally in a Tiff file format. Programs like DaVinci will read the Tiff sequence (Targa/Cinema DNG) and which allows for the application of appropriate color. We use something called a look up table (LUT) to match a specific look for viewing. These LUT's are based on film stocks in the film world and when applied, they will mimmic a particular look. Digital cinema cameras like the Red, Arri and Blackmagic, shoot in 12 - 16 bit RAW (Tiff/Jpeg) and deliver a very similar post process. The files are brought into DaVinci (or other coloring tool) and color is applied. Without the color applied, the image is washed out and very flat looking with little to no dynamic range, unlike a film image. In the world of digital, the look up table (LUT) is actually built for the specific camera. So the image is almost decoded in a way to whatever viewing system you have. Still cameras, DSLR's and home video cameras (outside of a few rare examples) shoot using a highly compressed MPEG format. This format is designed for easy playback on a myriad of computers, software and encode efficiency. Unlike RAW, it's not a frame based system. Every 8 - 24 frames, there is a key frame and every frame after that is only encoded based on changes in the shot. So if you don't move the camera, it will look fantastic! The moment you have a lot of movement in the shot, the image falls apart because the limited bandwidth MPEG file, can't deal with it. Plus, these cameras shoot in 8 bit 4:2:0 color space which is the lowest "acceptable" quality format. It's actually nearly identical to broadcast tv. Plus, due to the size of the cameras, the manufacturers are unable to put the requisite powerhouse processors and imagers, to produce a smooth beautiful image without blurring. This effect is commonly known as "rolling shutter". The CMOS imager scans from top to bottom, so if you move the camera fast or an object moves in front of the camera at speed, that object will be in a different part of the frame at the top then at the bottom. On some cameras, it's really bad, you'll see object warping and distortion, on others it's not so bad, but on all of them it's noticeable. So because these consumer based cameras are light, cheap and don't chew up batteries, they're very limited in operation. Even if you shoot perfectly with them in perfect conditions, pulling out a reasonable image, can be very tricky and challenging. So trying to get a certain "look" is nearly impossible without substantial post processing. Even then, MPEG artifacts are a constant battle, especially if the exposure isn't perfect. I mean, if you shoot it and never make any changes in post, you could get away with MPEG cameras, but the moment you make changes, you will open a pandoras box of unwanted noise and artifacts. What's the solution? Well, ya gotta start with a camera that shoots RAW (RED, ARRI, Blackmagic, etc). Then you've gotta scanned test pattern from a 35mm source. Take that source and build a LUT based on it using DaVinci. Then simply apply that LUT to the RAW camera material. It may take a few tries, but if you do that, you will absolutely get the color tinting you're looking for. Then the best thing about DaVinci is that you can apply a print film LUT on the output as well. So you can say, hmm... today I want X print film on my output, which will taint the colors one more time. The whole workflow works wonderfully, but it doesn't work without a LOT of color space 12 - 24 bit, full raster (RAW) and a lot of work with DaVinci. Sorry for the long winded response. I don't mean to pick on the DSLR, but unfortunately it's just a toy. Yes, consumer cameras have come a long way, but they're very restrictive for the filmmaker looking to make major changes in the image. I personally stayed away from DSLR's and went for the newer generation cinema cameras and they look other-worldly compared to the DSLR's.

Yea, that link is good. Really the biggest difference between the LTR and XTR is standard PL mount, built-in beam splitter with more standard video tap and magnetic drive magazines. My LTR doesn't make much noise, the XTR is even quieter. Outside of those differences, they're pretty much the same camera with minor changes over the years. Aaton pioneered and patented the tapered pull-down claw system, which is quite amazing and very different from what Arri uses. Plus, since the film runs through gears, the pull-down system is less in charge of the film movement. So even though it doesn't have a registration pin, I've found the registration to be absolutely spot on. Without the pin, the movement is a lot quieter because all it does is pull down instead of hold. Not saying the SR3 is loud, it's pretty quiet, just saying Aaton's design is better. If you want a camera tomorrow, call up visual products. They have a refurbished XTR prod with 3 mag's and new batteries for $3k. It's a great package to get you started. You can find them for less if you look hard, but if you just want one, I'd nab that one.

WOW so sad! Just hearing this for the first time! I absolutely love his work, for sure one of my favorite DP's. Though I admit, 'Close Encounters' is where I first recognized his work as a youth. It wasn't until I was older that I caught up on his older films. It's truly unfortunate he didn't continue working with Spielberg because the end product of their not so eye to eye collaboration, was brilliant in both cases. He did repeat work with some amazing directors over the years however and in between he took on much smaller films, which was always interesting to me. Even though it's a loss to the industry, his legacy will live forever.

I didn't see any problems, outside of some minor color balance. No head cut off's nothing of the sort. I thought the hit and run was simple and worked. I thought the printing of the "lost and found" papers was cute and worked (how do you hand write 30 papers with a picture on them). I thought the directors focus on the papers and not the girl as she posts them, worked. I thought the caroler scene worked as well. It was cute, though I expected a bigger pay off in the end, not just "aww isn't that cute". I wouldn't have done much differently, only minor things that would have tightened things up slightly.

I agree with Adrian. I'd spend less money on the body and more money on glass and support. I have an LTR 54 and it's a wonderful camera. It has a great tap, crystal sync up to 54fps and is well made. I really like its straight forward simplicity, it's just a black box, it doesn't need to be a Swiss Army knife like the 416. I've also learned that most of the recent 16 productions have used aaton. I never understood why, but now that I own and have used one on a few shoots, it's so well balanced and works great hand held. I also like the 12v battery system and super easy to load mags. Coming from the word of arri, I'm very impressed with the Aaton inside and out. You can get XTR prods for peanuts if you look around.

:D

It really depends on what you wish to do, what is your end game? If you wish to simply work in the film industry, as in people pay you to do a singular specialized job, like cinematographer, editor, gaffer, etc, then it's a wise idea to start on the ground level in Hollywood and work your way up. If you wish to produce your own product as a writer/director, I'd stay away until you've got one heck of a good portfolio. Get a good job in Austin and use that money to make a bunch of short films. Submit them to festivals and get some buzz going over a few years. If you can find someone to invest in your films, what's the point of leaving? What I see here in Hollywood is the same routine over and over again. Young film student comes to Hollywood. They get an unpaid internship, get abused and can't pay the rent. So they get a full time job as a waiter or something of that nature and try to make ends meet, but it becomes impossible, so they move home. Los Angeles is a huge rotating door, for every 250,000 new people that come here, there are another 250,000 leaving for whatever reason. There are two types of people who "make it"; Highly specialized artists and jacks of all trades. The highly specialized artist job is a REAL commitment. You start on the ground floor as an intern, then assistant, then slowly move up the ladder. Most specialized jobs, it can take upwards of 10 - 20 years to reach your end goal and a lot of people never quite reach their dream, settling for a lower-end job in order to pay the bills. Plus, you need a lot of luck along the way, meeting the right people AND having a decent skill set, can open a lot of doors. A jack of all trades is someone who can pretty much do anything on a project. More and more people are fitting this profile as time goes on since technology is so enabling. It's far harder to work here as a jack of all trades because without a speciality, people don't quite understand what you do. However, it's a HUGE enabler because you could theoretically work in a parallel industry like technology at the same time you're producing projects. I'm slightly bias towards "jack of all trades" as well because I'm one of those guys and I've survived here in Hollywood for 13 years, never committing to a single specialist job. Whatever pays the rent, as long as it's creative, I'm there. In terms of shooting in Los Angeles, it can get tricky. The more people you have on the ground, the more people will notice. The trick is to be extremely mobile and don't even think about boom mic's and large cameras. If you have a little camera and wireless mic's, with three people behind the camera, you'll probably be fine. Plus, the further away you are from Los Angeles, the less problems you'll have. Remember, everyone and their mom shoots here, so the cop's are especially keen to this. If you strike a permit, you really need insurance and a whole host of other things. If you make a feature film that you wish to sell, the buyer needs to have sign off's from every single location and person on screen. It doesn't matter what city or people are in the film, it's just the lay of the land. Plus, to make a bigger show with actual actors, you need an LLC, insurance, permits and all the standard legal documents anyway. This is why a lot of first time directors shoot in the desert or far away from civilization, on public land, so they don't need to spend as much on these things. So it really doesn't matter if you stay in Austin or move to Los Angeles, if you plan on being a filmmaker, making a living off your films, you need to have all these documents and a business to boot. In the end, if you plan on being a filmmaker, producing your own product, there is no reason to move. I'd stay in Austin, I'd focus on fine tuning your skills and when the time is ready for you to head out west, you will know. Until then, keep experimenting and making whatever you want. Make sure people are free to watch and critique your work and make sure you don't make the same mistakes repeatedly. :)

No, No DIT!!! You could make an MOS movie and still need a $5000/week DIT who does the trained monkey job on all modern hollywood films. God bless digital. Those are probably the only guys actually buying boats... well them and the union truck drivers. LOL :D

If you're going to rip disks, it doesn't matter what drive you have. Region coding is only there to prevent realtime playback. There really isn't any decent way to rip bluray's on mac. You have to make a disk image first and then work with the raw media using a program like handbreak. It's very time consuming, but it does work in the end. I've done lots of ripping for post houses who needed clips for BTS doc's on older movies. They don't bother sending us HDCAM masters, they just send a bluray! crazy. Anyway, the apple drive isn't bad, but any drive WILL work since the playback programs are 3rd party anyway. The apple drive is USB powered, which is nice.

But the 70mm projection was still better... that's been the take everyone has made who's done the comparison. I don't dare compare because there is no way I'd appreciate the digital version compared to the DGA 70mm screening which was in my opinion superior to digital in every way since the print was brand new. It really comes down to the fact we're using 50+ year old projectors and 80+ year old designs. Heck, most digital theaters are using projectors from a few years ago and most of them still look like crap compared to the 85 year old 70mm format. I mean seriously, 15/70 blows the doors off anything digital, mostly because they have a far superior projection system. Registration pin's, film cleaning systems and more sophisticated film movement/guide solutions, have made IMAX superior and most of that technology would work fine in a vertical 5/70 environment, it's just that nobody cares, so nobody spends the money. Platter systems ruin prints because they're poorly designed and film handlers don't make the necessary changes to make them work. Good example of this is the destroyed print of 'Force Awakens' at the Vista, looks like it was dragged on the floor a week after it's initial release. So yes, we can complain about dirt, dust, scratches and jitter, but those are not 'inherent' in the format, like the muddy blacks and flatness of digital projection which IS inherent in the format. We can fix film projection, it's not complicated, it just requires money and a few people who care. What ceases to amaze me is how good Arclight Cinema's does with film prints. Yet, nobody else who uses platter systems gets close. What gives? This isn't rocket science!!!!

Yeppers! Happy New year Adrian! :)

Well, I just got back the first 16mm footage I've shot in 10 years! My friend Eric Walter and I, had a great time up in the Angeles Forest capturing some test footage with my Aaton LTR and Yushica Super 8 camera. He's working on a documentary and wants to shoot some stuff on film, so I figured why not get test both, super 8 and S16? It gave me an excuse to waste a roll of film to test the camera anyway. I must admit, shooting film again is a breath of fresh air. Yea, I made a few rookie mistakes... but nothing too detrimental. I got the material I was looking for and it came out great. I used some old Fuji 64D stock I bought a few months ago that barely passed a fog test. I figured that it didn't really matter how much grain there was, after all it was just a camera test. I struck a one light print of the material instead of doing a telecine because in my eyes, it's better for testing a camera and it's a lot cheaper. I was going to use Cinelab in Boston, but Fotokem offered me a great deal I couldn't pass up (sorry Robert) and the print came out great. Watching the print for the first time was nerve wracking. The first two shots didn't come out because I had accidentally adjusted the focus wrong. I don't know why, but it was clearly an operator error as the foreground was in focus and the background wasn't. Still, I kept watching and got near half way, which is where I started capturing material I'm going to use in my next Celluloid Dreaming promo. Eric posed for me with the super 8 camera at magic hour, it's some great stuff! Even though the Fuji stock is very blue/green, it has amazing red's and pinks, it's really amazing looking honestly. We shot some digital material the same day and compared it to the film, it was pretty spot on color wise. I'm very happy how that material came out, even though it was pretty grainy for 64D. Once I have some money again, I'm going to send the negative out and have someone transfer selects for my next promo video. I really want to include "FILMED" material in all of my promo's from now on. I can't wait to see what the Super 8 stuff looks like, that's going to be processed early next week. I just hope my antique camera still works and the damn thing has an image! Now... I'm embarrassed to post this because I took my pocket camera and shot the screen to get it, but here is the 16mm roll in its entirety. It looks 10X better projected, the digital copy doesn't do it justice. Of course, my projector is square, so the true aspect ratio doesn't shine through either. Also, I only shot the stuff of Eric, the rest he shot because he was experimenting with different things. But it gives you an idea of what I'm talking about. http://tye1138.com/stuff/LTRcameratest.mov

Ohh yea, not saying it's effective, I'm a 2 perf advocate personally. It's just a cool idea!

Good points ya'll, nice to hear you're thinking about things. I do think our modern audiences are to a certain extent are so desensitized, it's hard to make something different they'd be interested in. People today don't appreciate good filmmaking. I was very impressed with 'Carol' for instance, such fantastic filmmaking, but it's never going to make any money. Sure, it's won and will continue to win awards, but sometimes that's not enough. Had a first time filmmaker made 'Carol', I bet they'd have trouble finding funding for further projects. As much as I liked 'Carol', it's not something I'd watch again. Where more fun films, things that are truly simply entertainment, I'd watch over and over again. Picking a modern socially relevant topic and writing short films around it is a great idea. I'm actually doing that right now about the Muslim situation. I've got a great little story about a muslim kid who is picked on in school and starts to become radicalized as a consequence. It's actually based on a true story that a friend brought me and it's very relevant. We'll be writing the treatment soon and probably shoot it with my existing Fuji stock for whatever money I can dig up. I think social relevance is critical for short films, it's something I tried to do in 'The Perfect Moment' which is one of my shorts, which circles around government greed and how one government official's daughter feels the only way to stop it is to kill her father. Umm because when you're older and have money, you can make anything you want. When you're young and don't have money, you're kind of forced to make what you can afford to produce.

4 perf 16mm is actually a larger area then 2 perf 35mm

Hey Perry, What's the best bang for the buck?

I wasn't only talking to Josh, just making a generalized statement to anyone reading. I mean, there are two ways to go... mess around and never make something worth watching OR take the time you have at school, where you've got access to equipment and the talents of other students and attempt to produce content that will give you a potential career boost. If a career making movies doesn't interest someone, then who cares what they produce. Most of the time however, student films become the work that defines a filmmaker. Plus, once graduated, it's very challenging to have a full-time job AND make films. So using that precious college time for producing something special, is pretty smart. I spent a lot of time in school helping other filmmakers with their projects. I saw the ones with stellar student films eventually get involved in the film industry and those who didn't put in the effort, fall to the wayside. As we said in other threads, passion is great, but it can be misleading. Talent is far more important then passion and you can't really measure talent unless it's on the screen, unless people are able to sit down and watch it. Anyway, these are just some tips I've learned over the 20+ years I've been in the industry. I've looked back on the mistakes I made as a young filmmaker and know today how simple it would have been to fix them. I just wish to share what I learned and what I know today, so people don't go the same direction I did. I got lucky because I'm also very technically minded and that's kept me employed for years. Yet, there is a much smoother/cleaner path to becoming a filmmaker and the films you make as a student will haunt you forever if you don't do them right... assuming you want to be a filmmaker.

I flat-out dislike everything about Final Cut X. I also work in Hollywood. My job is producing content which goes on television and in the theaters. I also consult with the top production houses as a specialist related to developing hardware/software solutions and workflows.I always suggest FCPX to facilities who are migrating away from FCP7 and the backlash is huge. Every editor I know has used FCPX, either despises it or uses it for kiddy fun stuff and doesn't think it's ready for prime time. I've cut quite a bit with every version of FCPX, I was an early adopter editing an entire web series with it. Yet, as they added features, it's not really gotten any better. Much of what makes Avid so powerful, they just don't understand. They try to force people into working a non-logical environment and it doesn't work. What it does is turn people off and it's absolutely turned me off. It's great at cutting, it's not good at anything else. So what I've learned and experienced over the last 5 years since FCPX came out is that Apple has no interest in making a professional tool. They have hindered FCPX enough to make it just a toy that's capable of being tricked into being something else. The truth is, Apple themselves don't trust the software they make! Apple's own in-house editors use Avid. Apple's marketing company uses Avid. So all the training video's, all the marketing/promotional pieces, those are all made on Avid. Mind you, prior to FCPX, Apple was 100% FCP7 and most of the in-house technology they developed for FCP7 like Final Cut Sever, which was lightyears ahead of everyone else's media management solution, was a complete failure on the open market. I have the heart of this industry in my hand, my ear is always on the ground and I'm acutely aware of what's going on. I don't believe times are changing. Most people could give two shits about resolution. Editors are here to tell stories and the best story telling tool, is the one that doesn't hinder your abilities. Avid is such an open tool, capable of doing everything under one roof, it's very hard to edit with FCPX which is so limited. Until you sit down and learn Avid inside and out, you just don't know. Jan Kovac was an assistant editor prior to doing "focus". So yea, I'd argue pretty much everything he did because I've heard him talk and don't agree with much of it. Yea, for heavy visual effects shows, FCPX does have some great solutions. However in reality land, people don't do effects in house anyway. They send finished cuts to effects houses and they deliver the final shots to the finishing house when they're combined to the final picture. Also, if you aren't doing heavy visual effects shows, that benefit goes right out the window.

Worthy in your own mind, which is part of the problem. I agree that experimentation is critical, like any artist understanding the medium you're working with is important. However, I don't think experimenting for the sake of experimenting is important. I also think it's far more critical to write something more main stream. We all know what main stream films are suppose to look like, so it's an instant gauge to judge your own work. How close can you get to the polished feel of many main stream films? Is your story main stream enough to interest others and get them to watch? If people aren't watching your film and giving you positive feedback, it's hard as a filmmaker to learn from your mistakes. In YOUR mind, you'll see the mistakes YOU made, but may never see the one's others find. Those are the mistakes you truly learn from, it's feedback from random people that make the learning experience so vital and you won't get that feedback, if your film sounds like crap, looks uninteresting or has a stupid story because people will shut it off. I fast forwarded through 'Limbo' because honestly, there was no mystery, no intrigue, nothing to keep me watching and nobody wants to watch some egg head middle age guy screw some hot chicks. At least 'Locks' was short, sweet, to the point and simply put together. Sure I would have probably cut it tighter, but it worked. So production value, doesn't matter too much if it's believable and in my eyes 'Locks' was a real true to the heart story. I know I've posted this a lot... but in 2010, I co-wrote, produced, shot and edited a 48hr film as an experiment to see if we could make something decent in two days. We shot this in 24hrs and had a cut done, with all-original music by the end of our second day. I did wind up spending another week tweaking the final cut and doing color, but it could have been done in 48hrs no problem. No money, shot with an HDV camcorder, non-actors and first-time director.

Yea, but it's more then story. It's also about dedicating a lot of time and money into something you won't get any financial gains from. There are a lot of great storytellers out their, who simply can't afford to tell their stories. A person walking around on the streets of Oakland, shot with a borrowed film school camera with MOS (no set sound) is a whole hell of a lot different then a non-student, trying to tell a more complex story. It's far easier to tell a story with non-actors who don't need to speak, then with non actors who do. A lot of the low/no budget films that work, aren't dialog driven. Those that ARE, like the heaven film above, that was grossly expensive to produce. So it's treading that fine line between spending little to no money, but producing an excellent product. There is a HUGE difference between making a film with a bunch of friends on your personal camera, then paying for professional actors and crew to create a professional look for your film. That's all down to money in the long run and most people don't put in the effort because lets face it, digital or film, the real cost is the decent crew, locations, production design, lighting, actors and post work. One man bands (myself included) we can only do SO much and I think the better films are really made by people who write and/or direct only. Saving things like cinematography, editing and even acting, for the pro's. So where digital technology has helped people tell their story for less money, it's not necessarily opened the doors for better products being made. You still need a decent amount of money to make it work.

The guys on Film Tech said the 2D DCP was 2k. My first digital viewing was absolutely 2k, even though it was a 4k projector. My second digital 2D viewing looked more like 4k to me, but I've been stumped before. The film just looked like it was made from a 2k source.

Interesting, I just found the press release. I'd honestly assume the press is wrong about this one. Lets wait until we see production photo's and notice what equipment they're using. I personally think he'll pull an 'Interstellar' and shoot most of it on IMAX 15/70 and 35mm anamorphic (according to IMDB), forcing everyone to pull projectors back out again. Obviously, I hope he will do 65 for the whole project, but I frankly don't see that happening if it's all being shot in Europe. It's exciting if it is! :) I had forgotten about PT pulling out of Pinocchio, that was earlier this year. :(

What shocked me was the dirt at the splice points between reels. It's as if the projectionist was rubbing his bare fingers on the film for several feet before he found the cut point. The scratches were dead center and very soft. Honestly, the digital projection was far better, in a different league then this film print. Not just dirt and scratches, but also coloring. The film print looked faded with over-exposed highlights. I also noticed "stepping" in bright to dark areas, stuff you see with 8 bit material, especially noticeable around the light sabers. I mean, it looked like a 2k film out that nobody cared about, so they banged it out quick. I bet they didn't even use the raw sequence from DaVinci or whatever coloring software they used. Next time I'm over at Fotokem, I'll ask the guy if he knows how they did it. I'm actually anxious to know because it wasn't acceptable in my book. I've seen "Interstellar" and "hateful Eight" both finished photochemically on 70mm and digital, the film print blew the doors off the digital presentation. So it's completely possible to strike a print that looks good.