Tyler Purcell

I'm beginning to think the "wonderful" images are in controlled situations. Both Sony and RED cameras suffer from similar "video-ish" highlight clipping. So when you go outside in direct sunlight, you see these issues come to life. There is a great graph I found a few years ago which shows this phenomena in greater detail, wish I could find it now. It showed the Sony and RED cameras have a harsh clipping at the top end, where the Alexa was very soft. The less-expensive Sony cameras have the worst problem with this. I'm always amazed by the harsh clipping and why nobody see's it. I see it, bothers the living crap out of me because it looks like a CCD imager on an ENG camera all of a sudden. What humors me the most is my Blackmagic cameras don't have this phenomena and when I shoot and edit with other cameras, it's generally under controlled lighting in one way or another. However, I have edited a lot of FS7/F5/F55/F65, Dragon/Epic and Alexa material, only to be blown away by how consistent the Alexa looks over the other's.

Knowing Kubrick, I'm sure his DP's were busy every moment the camera wasn't running. The moment that camera started, I'm sure they were pacing back and forward. It must have been quite stressful... I couldn't deal with it either.

I believe there have been far more productions using RED then Alexa. That's mainly due to RED coming out way before Arri got their act together. It's also due to RED's incessant marketing strategy to push for resolution over color science and quality. Arri spent too much time perfecting the imager and not enough time making the system higher resolution. So it wasn't until very recently that Arri had a 4k (and now 6k) solution for digital cinema acquisition. Also, RED cameras are substantially cheaper then anything Arri makes, so more people own RED then Alexa. I just saw "The Martian" and if you like blown out highlights and a "video" looking image, check out that film at your local 4k theater. It boggles the mind why anyone thinks that RED cinema looks good. I really think people have forgotten what a good image looks like.

Super 16mm is 1.67:1 aspect ratio and it sounds like you used the stock ground glass. So it sounds like a lab problem to me. You asked them to only pull something from the center of the image. This isn't a wise idea because unless your using a 1.85:1 ground glass, it's almost impossible to "compose" everything properly. You can very easily remove the stock ground glass and put some tape on it to matte it to 1.85:1 in the future. On this film, you will need the lab to scan the entire image and resize in post. This is what MOST people do with 16mm because it allows for the proper re-framing. You can ask them to give you a 16x9 (1.75:1) slightly cropped image OR pillar-boxed (1.67:1) full S16mm frame image.

Yea I mean, if you can set the audio sliders to one position and it sounds OK with the two tracks, you may be ok. You can always check it before making the optical track.

It's gonna be hard to mix on a steenbeck, the audio level controls are always so noisy. You'll have to raise and lower the volume as you playback the tracks and record them onto another locked mag machine. The other solution is to take your elements, throw it in a digital editor, mix it all and then export directly to a nice clean mag track. I found that to be the easiest and best sounding solution, unless of course you can find a few lockable mag readers and a small mixer. Usually most films need 3 tracks; dialog, effects, music and that's really hard to do with a 2 track steenbeck. If you could score a 35mm 3 track mag recorder, you could transfer each of those tracks to the 35mm mag stock. Then play it back and record the final with your single track mag recorder through a mixer.

Kubrick designed the lighting rigs, he choose his own lenses/cameras, he choose the composition and most of the time ran the camera. The reason he had a cinematographer was 2 fold... One; the unions wouldn't let him shoot his own stuff. Two; he needed someone to bounce his ideas off of. He was notorious for pissing off a few cinematographers early in his career, but Alcott worked well with him because he didn't have an ego. It's truly unfortunate he passed away suddenly from a heart attack in the mid 80's.

The big question is; why would you want to hinder the potential of your final product? Buyers of content today want 4k DCP's and if you don't have one, that's a cost they may not want to deal with. So if you truly want your film to be purchased, you've gotta shoot or at least finish in 4k. This is part of the reason why we're seeing such a big shift towards 4k shooting, it's almost a pre-requisite. Unlike film, where you can always extract more from the original elements, with digital cinema, what you shoot is the max resolution you'll ever get. So another reason people want to shoot 4k is an attempt to "future-proof" their product. This makes sense for bigger productions, but for smaller shows, it's kinda silly in my point of view. I can't afford to store 4k RAW material for a web video, it's just too costly. I'd rather shoot in a format that's easy to store, so in the future it won't be lost when drives go bad. Honestly, the reason why Arri and Red cinema cameras are so popular is simply because they work. People understand them, workflows exist and they're more built for shooting cinema then their predecessors. Are my Blackmagic Pocket cameras really different? In my eyes, not really. Sure the Alexa has external menu's which are more intuitive for people who are use to shooting cinema, sure it has industry standard I/O, large imager and all the other professional bells and whistles. However, do they function the same way? Yea they really do. Throw some prime lenses on the pocket and there is really no reason someone who is use to shooting digital cinema, couldn't figure it out in a few seconds and get some amazing images. Plus, owning an inexpensive small cinema camera is an enabler, something the bigger cameras really struggle with. With all that said, film is still better, in more ways then one! ;)

The DaVinci film emulators really screw with things. I've been experimenting with them as well and honestly, you've gotta shoot in RAW to make them work. For some reason the REC709 Pro Res "Film" dynamic range, looks like crap when you use those emulators. The moment you give it RAW material, it comes to life and you can really make them work well. In terms of measuring your cameras sensitivity, I've used a standard SMPTE television gray scale chart. This makes it a lot easier to see your camera's complete dynamic range and get a far more detailed look on the scopes. I've used the chart in light-controlled situations and also outside with direct sunlight. I've found the Blackmagic cameras have a lot of problems at lower ASA's with dynamic range. As Adrian pointed out, the cameras natural sensitivity rating delivers the most dynamic range and everything on the charts just line up in the scopes perfectly @ 800ASA. However, the lower you put the ASA, the more issues you have with clipping. The only solution I've found is to underexpose everything by at least a stop if you can and re-work the image in DaVinci later. 200ASA has marketably less grain/noise and delivers a much smoother image then 800 ASA. Having shot on film and video for the decades prior to this Digital Cinema revolution, I have a general idea of what sensitivity, shutter speed and stop will work for given situation. Add a decent light meter to the party and you're gonna get spot on almost every time. I've found the Blackmagic cameras to be pretty accurate for their given ASA. Even when you crank up the shutter speed (lower shutter angle), at least the pocket camera is incapable of shooting in bright sunlight without an ND filter @ 200 ASA. In those very same situations, I'd be shooting 50 ASA on film and running the camera almost all the way closed, no less then F8. I recently did a 1600ASA test shoot using some christmas tree lights and it worked really well, I was really shocked how sensitive that little sensor is and the noise level wasn't horrid. So even the ultra-cheap cameras like the pocket, do a great job at delivering a decent image with little to no light.

Yea, I mean filmmaking is collaborative and everyone should give their input without being shut down. As Phil said, it's when you don't have people to give you input, that things fall apart.

For sure what Adrian said. It's very typical for telecine operators to do a "one light" transfer, where they set a look and run it off. So there was some correction made right off the top to make it look acceptable. In the future you can ask the operator to give you a "RAW" color space file and they should be able to do that. David's point is also spot on. HD telecine's can look like crap sometimes, especially with tungsten stocks.

Steven Soderbergh writes, produces, shoots, edits and directs most of his movies. Due to union issues, he generally ghost writes and gives someone else the credit and of course his cinematographer name is "Peter Andrews". He's credited for a few of his movies as the sole screenwriter but I know for fact, he's written most of his movies. Robert Rodriguez and Stanley Kubrick are both examples of writer, cinematographer, directors, even though they've worked with other DP's, they generally are the "ACTUAL" cinematographer. Almost all of my films have been done the same way. I generally take two or three credits, but try to bring in a writer and producer to help. I enjoy the story aspect and weaving the story around cinematography and editing. Directing is actually the easiest part because all you're doing is getting your vision on camera. The work pre and post shoot, is actually the most difficult. I'm kind of old school when it comes to directing, I like to do it from behind the camera, looking through the lens. I don't use monitors and never use replay systems. In the end, this really keeps your crew small, allows the actors to focus on acting and puts the director closer to the action. So a cinematographers job of lighting, really falls onto the gaffer. So having a super strong gaffing crew and key grip really helps. I also have a camera assistant who helps with equipment and of course metering. With that said, working as a writer, cinematographer, director, editor, is extremely time consuming and it does slow down production. Handing off the task of cinematography is usually the best thing to do. It free's the director to focus on the actors and telling the story. Plus it adds another creative mind to the picture, which really helps. Sure there can be some tension between two cinematographers, one directing and one shooting, but if you find the right guy to help, it can work well.

Yea, that was a good one. I think it was from the Bladerunner special edition DVD right?

Interesting idea. Ya know, as a fellow filmmaker, I thought the piece could have been better without music. Story and composition wise it works, but the cheesy music kinda spoils it. If it were my film, I'd figure out a way to tell the story without music. Maybe shorten the "building" substantially and focus on what happens when he arrives in the house after going back in time? It feels a bit long for no reason. Still, cool idea! :)

But why? There is no money exchanging hands. There is no public exhibition. Only a few members of a film crew will ever see it. Plus, it's only a temporary use, once the film is finished, the book will probably never be used again. Non-authorized reproduction happens everywhere today, it's common place in today's media-hungry world. People are going to do it, with or without consent. So in my mind, it's far better to embrace and accept, then fight and get nothing from it. Just my .02 cents.

Much better! Yea those flatbed's are really not that great. I can't imagine trying to scan S8 with them, that sort of detail is just too much for'em.

To Richards point, absolutely spot on. Ya gotta let the camera roll on those master wides, even if there are many mistakes. This is why I like to be very close to the camera, if not operating. This way I can give direction if something happens. I also tell my cast and crew to try and keep going no matter what, unless there is absolutely a reason to stop. Since most of my narratives have been on 16mm, I always load a new mag before every scene with a wide shot so if it goes long, I've got plenty of film. I try to get the entire scene covered in a 400ft roll if possible. With digital it's not so much of a problem, but I guess the main idea is to let the actors do their thing and keep the energy high. The moment you stop, everyone's energy drops and resetting can sometimes take a lot of time. David's point about lighting changes between wide's and close-up's is also spot on. I've never been able to shoot wide's and close up's with identical setup's. Usually I'll throw a bounce close to their face so it's better lit. Hard to do with a wide because the bounce would be out of shot. So it's nice to get that base lighting setup dialed and then go in for those close-up's. Yep, that's a pretty typical way on ultra low budget stuff. Even with my stuff, I always insist on a good master wide before going for closeup's. I will admit, that tactic has caused some scuffles with timing/locations, but I've found it to be worth it in the long run.

I like shooting masters first and here's why. Normally actors will make the most mistakes early in a scene and late in a scene when they're tired. Since master wides are rarely used as anything else but cutaway's, if the performance isn't perfect, it's not the end of the world. So once you get through one or two takes of a master wide, the actors should be more prepared. With close-up's, if you're doing typical over the shoulder, single camera, start with the stronger of the two actors and then move on to the weaker. Let the weaker actor have more time in the scene to make sure it's right. I get the other philosophy of starting close-up's and moving to wide. This catches the actors mistakes and sometimes good actors will give you awesome mistakes, which are repeatable in later takes. If you know your actors well, you may use this trick, but in my opinion it depends on their quality more then anything else.

That's true Carl, digital is just an "intermediary" rather then a means to an end.

Thanks, I appreciate your concern. I'm for sure not trying to proclaim anything. Just adding my input and I appreciate your input. I clearly have very different results working in the post production industry as a technical person for 10 years.

Exactly. Thank god for digital! Now everyone can shoot a "film"! Now, where did I put my gun... LOL :D

I'd love to know in what your opinion is wrong. I'd be more then happy to back up my data with some proof. I have plenty of it! :)

That's correct and those cameras need transcoding to work in most editing systems. My comments earlier were about XAVC-I which is "Intra-Frame" and doesn't need transcoding to work. I did mistype when I said HDXAM HD was native, it's not. Only the older standard def XDCAM/IMX format was native. I was mixing up DVCPRO HD with XDCAM HD… my bad. With 444 the Cr,Cb channels are using full resolution. With 422, the Cr,Cb channel use half the horizontal resolution. If you're using a 1920x1080 imager @ 422, your active pixels on the Cr.Cb channels is 960x1080. This creates banding between the Y channel and the Cr, Cb channels. This is why you don't see as much banding with higher resolution imagers in 422 mode. Really… so you'd expose to the car's headlights at night if they were simply driving by your shot? How about expose to the sun in the background when you're trying to get actors faces? Over-exposing parts of the frame is standard practice, with film we didn't think much about it because it deals with over-exposure in a nice soft way. With digital however, we have introduced problems which aren't easily solved. Cameras like the Alexa have a very soft clipping, in fact they're the best at clipping according to a recent test I saw. Guess which camera was worse? It's made by Sony… I've never heard of an FS5. The FS7 is a cheaper, lower price, more ENG version of the F5. Naaa, it's just personal opinion based on working with these formats for years. The problem is most cinematographers aren't post production experts and most post production guys aren't cinematographers. The good news is that I'm both and have been both for two decades. I've also served for 10 years as a broadcast engineer, building facilities and restoring old equipment like 2" quad machines. I always joke with friends, the only format I've never touched is VistaVision. But I'm a nerd true to the bone. All that said, I've been around the "technology" side since I was a child and sure digital cinema is a whole new can of worms, but I bought in, experimented and have come up with my own conclusions. It appears what cinematographers are looking for and what a technical person like myself is looking for, are two completely different things. In my eyes, most cameras are trying to please the cinematographer whilst leaving the technical side of things to be desired. This is how they sell cameras, make the people who buy them happy. Since most people who own high-end cameras, don't edit or color their material, this philosophy has worked well. This is why I've invested in Blackmagic Designs. They've turned that philosophy around, making cameras that may not be the best for the cinematographer, but are technically brilliant for the money. It's taken them four long years of market discovery to come up with the URSA mini and like the D20/21, it took Arri many years to come up with a decent digital cinema camera and they really have broken the mold with the brand new Alexa 65 and SXT 4k. Best imagers, best color science, best capture format, best post production work flow. The Arri currently makes the best digital cinema camera on the market, so the question is, how close with the new 4.6k URSA mini be? It will be 1/10th the price, higher resolution and the same post production workflow. So if it takes Blackmagic Designs 2 years to make the URSA Mini viable, they're still way ahead of the curve. Whilst Sony dicks around with MPEG's, the rest of the world will be working in full color space 12 and 14 bit formats.

Sorry Gregg, I was just showing a cheap steadicam.

http://www.thecinecity.com/eshop/FLYCAM-benz-arm-and-vest-with-stabilization-system.html