Tyler Purcell

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

I said; "Yes in Intra-Frame mode XAVC-I/XDCAM, the files do work in NLE's no problem and they are 10 bit 4:2:2." The only reason XDCAM was used is due to big contracts with broadcasters and Sony. Whilst Panasonic was still messing around with metal particle tapes, Sony was building random access optical disk cameras. They integrated very well with NLE's and weren't that expensive. Panasonic then switched from tape to solid state media, which was at the time very expensive. Companies still invested in XDCAM because they preferred that workflow, a physical asset that holds data forever, makes more sense to them. As XDCAM switched from optical to solid state, the workflow didn't change. Those companies could use the same computers and software, so this made the switch even easier. Panasonic didn't stand a chance and since nobody else's ENG cameras were any good, companies stuck with Sony. Nobody uses XDCAM because it looks good, they use it because they had no choice. 50Mbps XDCAM HD is the lowest quality accepted by broadcasters. It's the cheapest solution companies can use for ENG shoots. The last two full-time jobs I had was working with XDCAM HD media at company's producing promo's/reality programing. So no, it's not "my" workflow, it's the industries workflow. In contrast XAVC-I looks 10X better, but there are very few cameras that shoot with it. Nope, I despise the FS7. I've used the F5 and F55, not just shooting, but also coloring. With the raw recorder, the thing looks absolutely amazing. With XAVC-I, S-log, it's not quite as amazing, but for sure workable. The FS7 in contrast is substantially crisper and not as cinematic looking. The natural tendency for the camera is a colder look. It can take A LOT of work to get the FS7 colored warm and even when your finished, I've found it to be very challenging because not every shot has the same problems, so you can't build a LUT to combat them because it's all over the map. Coloring with S-Log MPEG's, also has the breakup issues I talked about earlier, any part of the image that was under or over exposed and needs to be corrected, generally becomes mush. However, those issues are nothing compared to my real big beef of the FS7; over exposing. Let's face it, the FS7 is an ENG camera with some bits taken from cinema cameras. When lit properly, the FS7 looks pretty good, but most of the look comes from the decent/large sensor. However, there is a problem with the image processing side of the camera. The added sharpness which is missing from the F5/55, makes the FS7's over-exposure areas look very harsh and too defined. You see them everywhere from nighttime shooting with car headlights, to daytime shooting with the sun in the background or reflections of sun on objects. Anytime there is over-exposure, there is harshness in the shot. I've been told the problem was fixed with a firmware update, but I just colored some stuff for a friend of mine with a brand new FS7 and all the updates, the problem was still there. If I had done the work at home, I would have posted some samples, but unfortunately it was done at his shop. Needless to say, I'm a minority. Everyone seems to be completely enamored with the FS7. I just dislike Sony's look and am not happy with their design decisions. They already have a new version coming out, which goes to show you how many problems they had with the first gen. Hopefully the 2nd gen will fix many of those issues, but I would never own one. I don't care how good XAVC-I is, it's a substandard format compared to 12 bit RAW (Jpeg2000/Tiff).

Tru, but if you owned it/operated it and took the "made in china" stickers off, it might not be that bad. ;)

Right, but where CCD's pulse their data all at once, CMOS doesn't. So if you were to use a CMOS sensor on an analog system, it would have horrible rolling shutter effect, making it ineffective as a moving image device. Fine for stills, if you don't move the camera, but not good for moving images. The solution to this problem was to use digital technology and "scan" the chip's output at high speed. This requires analog to digital conversion, serious processing power and memory. So today's CMOS technology for moving image (the OP's question) is all digital and couldn't be analog like CCD.

CMOS sensors are a grid of transistors which consist of a photodiode and an amplifier. When exposed to light, the photodiode reacts by creating a voltage and then amplified. Color is created through an APS pattern, where some pixels create certain colors. The sensor spits out a varied voltage which is then converted to digital and scanned by a processor. CCD don't need the processor as it pulses the voltage data all at once. CMOS doesn't do this in the same way, so it's a digital-only imager. Yes, it's interesting! Though, I'd throw it all away in a heartbeat. Technology doesn't make better films, it just makes everyone a filmmaker.

Steadicam's are SOOOO cheap today. You can get the Chinese knock-off's for around $2500 bux. I mean, someday when I get an URSA Mini, I may invest in one because that would be a pretty sweet rig! If only people paid money for freelance cinematographers! LOL :P

Yes in Intra-Frame mode XAVC-I/XDCAM, the files do work in NLE's no problem and they are 10 bit 4:2:2. However, all other modes are 8 bit 4:2:0 and are not compatible with any NLE. Yes, some NLE's transcode on the fly, like Final Cut Pro X and Premiere. Today was my first day on Premiere and I gave it some DSLR and GoPro MPEG's, which it did a quick transcode on each file before allowing me to use them. With MPEG's (even intra-frame) the compression is extremely high and it's efficient, but not very good. So even though you're capturing S-Log, you're still very limited in how much manipulation you can pull off. I work with FS7 footage all the time in DaVinci and have been unimpressed. If you underexpose slightly to help with the highlight clipping (which is STILL a problem), when you bring up the blacks, they loose all detail. It's the same with highlights, you will get MPEG noise all over the shot. Banding and aliasing can also get "muddy" with MPEG cameras, very annoying when you're sitting in DaVinci trying to correct a shot and you can't do anything without introducing lots of unwanted issues. Red code (JPEG2000) and CinemaDNG (Tiff's) are far better formats, both are 12 bit, both offer full color space per frame and unlike the MPEG cameras, there is no processing, what you get off the sensor is what's in the file. If you don't like shooting in a RAW format, shoot in Pro Res 444, which is also 12 bit and with the Blackmagic cameras, offer RAW color space within a Pro Res quicktime file at ANY resolution. I have WORKED Pro Res files and never once seen the codec break down. It's always the imager, processor or something else introducing noise into the image. With my cameras, the imager isn't quite good enough for 4:2:2, you do get banding on red/blue highlights. However, switch to RAW mode, it's all gone. The bigger cameras like the Alexa, CION, URSA and URSA mini, don't have those problems because the imager has so many more pixels to work with. Besides those issues, most MPEG cameras (not XAVC-I) don't write time of day timecode (starting at zero every single clip), they don't have built-in accurate/good naming conventions and worse of all, files can be very slow to access and work with. I mean, I have one heck of a powerhouse computer and dealing with MPEG files compared to Pro Res, is night and day. Pro Res just works and MPEG's work about 1/10th of the time... on those rare occasions when someone shoots in intra-frame.

Yep interesting, very simple. Though I don't understand the application because steadicam's work great and knock-off's are pretty cheap.

Were you planning on shooting 4 perf? If you don't have much money, just the optical's necessary to print 2 or 3 perf to 4 perf academy can be very expensive. So this is why DI is unfortunately the best way to go for smaller, lower budget films.