Tyler Purcell

The display isn't touch screen. The menu and function buttons are to the right of the display. So you'd look through the viewfinder adaptor and make the changes with the buttons. The viewfinder adaptor spaces the camera away from your face so you can do these adjustments without any issues. It actually works really well and the arrow keys have pre-programmed functions. I assume they'll have programmable keys over time. My favorite camera shape would be an Arri SR or something of that nature. The new URSA Mini would be a good example, but it's a bit heavy. Something with a nice big viewfinder, keeps your hands close to the lens for pulling and of course shoulder mount. The whole concept of holding a camera in front of you, it really sucks. However, since the camera weighs ounces instead of pounds, it's A LOT easier to hand hold without support by pressing the body/viewfinder adaptor against your head. I've got some amazingly stable (better then shoulder) shots using this trick AND of course a monopod. DSLR's weigh so much more, it's almost impossible to hold them steady even with the viewfinder adaptor. I was shooting stills with a D5MKIII few weeks ago without any support and it reminded me of how heavy these cameras really are. It's not a camera designed for studio shooting or for bigger productions, that's not its purpose. It's designed for the cinematographer who wants a great looking image to play around with on smaller personal projects. In fact, the camera is worthless in a studio environment where it's on all day long. It over-heats, it has a flimsy worthless power adaptor AND it magnifies the glass too much, so getting medium-wide shots in a small location, can be challenging. Again, it's a $998 dollar camera, you'd have to spend almost double to get a bigger imager and then you'd loose the Pro Res/RAW 10 bit capture. Besides, the camera has zero automatic function, so you're always using it as a cinema camera, setting up the ASA, Shutter Angle, F stop and focus manually. This allows you to stay within the "cinematographers" world and not have automatic functionality spoiling your imagery like most of the counterparts on the market. Yes, I personally love the guerrilla aspects of this camera. Again, since the camera wasn't made for bigger shows, being small is an asset. If it was a bigger camera, even if it was the same price, I probably wouldn't have bought it. The form factor was #2 on my list, next to raw color space/pro res capture. I shoot ALL of my productions guerrilla and it really works well. You capture moments you couldn't capture otherwise because the camera doesn't stand out. When you strip it down to a lens and viewfinder adaptor, it's only a few inches long and no wider then an iPhone 5. In all the shoots I've done with the camera, not a single person has thought it was a video camera. Whenever the lens goes onto them, they freeze for a second thinking I'm taking a still picture. I literally have to tell people before I shoot that it's a video camera and most people don't believe me. To me, there is nothing like it on the market in that price bracket. The Japanese (canon, sony, panasonic) have all focused on 8 bit MPEG capture. Plus, as the Japanese focus on "specs" (resolution/sensor size/lux) to sell their cameras, Blackmagic has focused on making a good image. Things like color science, white clipping and noise in the blacks, these are critical for me as a filmmaker and Blackmagic has nailed them. The Japanese cameras in a similar price bracket, they aren't even close in those areas and to me, that's what makes the pocket camera stick out. The pocket is getting long in the tooth today, that I will admit. It doesn't over crank, Pro Res HQ is the best codec, it's 1920x1080 and they could have a better display. However, the pocket is still their best seller the way it sits right now. I personally can't imagine them updating the camera the way it sits right now. They do have a new 4k sensor that's being used on the "Micro Studio" which could easily be used in a small-form factor camera like the pocket. So my guess is, their next big camera (Maybe IBC this year or NAB next year) will be all-new small form factor camera to replace the older studio camera which is long in the tooth, but have a much smaller form factor like the pocket. My guess is, the price will be sub $2k and it will feature a 12 bit RAW 4k capture or Pro Res 4444 with 60FPS @ 1920x1080, but most likely no global shutter. If that happens in a similar form factor to the pocket with interchangeable batteries and such, it will be another win for Blackmagic and I would absolutely step on that ship. In the meanwhile, the pockets work great and since I use standard Canon mount glass, I can always sell my bodies and by others.

The camera is designed to be small, light weight and not draw attention to itself. They're proving you don't need a big box to make a cinema camera and they're spot on. Yes, it requires aftermarket accessories to make work, but what camera doesn't? RED cameras require thousands of dollars of accessories to do anything. So I'm totally OK with spending a few extra hundred dollars on a viewfinder adaptor so I can see the display in the sun. It's not an afterthought what so ever, it's the only way they could have made it. Imagine it having a little hole you push your eye into, your nose would be crushed the whole time you shot and there would be no viewfinder adaptor options. You could put a big production monitor on the top, it has an HDMI output.

That's what I thought, it's part of the "registration" function. It just amazes me how much it moves. There is A LOT of correction going on. On the machines I'm use to using, the gate never moves. BTW… I was playing with the Blackmagic scanner few days ago and it's going to be out next month. It's a toy right now, but I think it has real potential in the future. It actually uses a large pixel depth imager, unlike the cameras. So right now it's setup for 4k, but they're saying in the future that may change depending on software update. They haven't quite figured out how to make it work with 16mm, but I've been told they'll have a gate sometime in the next few months. I'm trying to use that machine to transfer some stuff from a library I maintain because it would be cheap/free. So hopefully I can get some samples of 16mm eventually. The 35mm samples I scanned during the show, didn't blow my doors away in terms of registration. They can only do sprocket registration, which is weak. You can adjust where the registration is taken from, but it can only be in the area of the sprocket. So yea, for $30k it's a great solution, but I don't think it really competes against the higher end units. But it's early days and I'm certain they will do more updates over the years.

More details thanks to an article from Indywire : http://blogs.indiewire.com/thompsononhollywood/how-quentin-tarantino-resurrected-ultra-panavision-70-for-the-hateful-eight-roadshow-20150828

Yep… I don't quite understand either. I'm very much into motivated light.

I was referring to the white edges around the outside of the quicktime movie, which would be the gate in this case. It's moving all over the place and I assume that's to compensate for something.

They're actually made for NASA and building space vehicles. They're very soft and NASA prohibits them from leaving anything behind. So I assume DuPont made them for the space program. I've never seen these gloves anywhere outside of camera shops that are long out of business. I learned about film cameras from a professional Arriflex certified technician, so I just used his techniques and they work great.

Why does the outside white edge of the scan move at all?

I think they're referring to the portable video recorder/monitor, which opens up like a clamshell with a Hi-8/DV deck inside. Back in the day, video taps off the film camera would run directly to one of these units and a lot of times, it was the only way of monitoring a shot outside of looking through the viewfinder of the camera. It would allow instant replay as well, which was awesome.

I spent about that much on my blackmagic pocket cameras (2 of them) including lenses. So that's why I saw your budget and was like, why spend that on a DSLR when you can buy 2 cameras for coverage on a doc/interview shoot (which is what I do). The cameras look great, they're small and have native Pro Res files. With the right (cheap) accessories, the camera is very powerful and even the sound isn't that bad. I'm personally not a fan of the DSLR's because they really are lacking in the video department. Even with magic lantern, they still have some pretty major issues like monitoring audio, size, weight, record time (limited to buffer speed) and cost. Here is an example of the pocket and a little video I made about it.

Yes, I always pull focus. I came from the ENG world and I like to be up next to the lens using the standard viewfinder. So my left hand is always available to turn knobs. If I have to pull more then one thing (zoom/focus/iris) then my AC will step in and help. However, I tend to use primes and light for a single stop. The gloves I use are not made of cotton, they're made of a soft polymer. They are designed for this application and a camera service guy gave me a pair 20 years ago. I honestly don't even now where they are today! I don't shoot much film anymore. :(

Have you thought about an actual cinema camera or is there a reason you need/want a still camera as well?

The 50D stuff looks great! ;)

I believe there is a huge difference between purposely styling the format and being stuck with a character trait of that format. I don't like grain because it's completely unnecessary to creating a good image and telling a story. Crisp, super-fine grain film is just amazing and it's rarely seen in today's films. Everyone lights and shoots as if they're shooting digital, but for a few more minutes of setup, they can light for 200T and have way less grain. Yet, they just don't take that next step because they simply don't care enough. That's why I call them lazy filmmakers, because that decision is wrong, especially today when most films are blown up to IMAX size. This is why on small-format, it's probably smart to shoot as fine of a grain stock as you can. This way, it will lead to a better transfer and stand out amongst the crowd.

Again, on big shows when you've got big pay crew, you'd expect perfection. I don't even think about big shows because I will never be apart of one as a cinematographer, so it doesn't phase me. I only mention it because the OP is probably not making a big movie. I just care a bit more for the medium then most and expect the best results. I see people touching original camera negative without gloves and I get pissed.

Yep, cuz nobody cares.

and when you do experimental non-commercial products you watch at home on the original files, then it doesn't matter. However, most people try to make commercial product and in that case, film grain is a nuisance for both theatrical and home video distribution due to compression and how it deals with noise/grain. I personally can't stand grain, as I've been stuck with it for decades of shooting on film. I'd rather over-light something and reduce that grain to an almost infinitesimal level, then have a film fill of noise. I don't give any credit for people with noisy films. It takes a real talent to produce a grain-free image in-camera.

Admittedly, I've never had a professional union loader on any of my shows. When you work low-budget, you get what you pay for. I did a documentary shot on 16 with SR's and the director brought in "top industry guy" to take care of the film aspects. We shot three cameras and you can't make mistakes with doc's because you get one chance. Two of the three cameras jammed right at the beginning of the show, both because he didn't wind the take up reel enough and the film fell off the reel and filled up the mag. So we got maybe 50 feet in and the cam's jammed. Problem is, we didn't know until we stopped the cameras because we couldn't hear the cameras. During our scheduled mag changes, we noticed the perf's were torn. I slammed the next mag in and kept shooting, put my assistant on the camera to try and diagnose what was going on with the mags. I collected them and took them apart in the changing bag, sure enough my suspicion was right, we lost the first 10 minutes of the show. I've had similar problems on narratives, but as you said, it's no big deal. You grab another mag, clean the camera and keep going. Part of my big beef is fingers on film and oil, greases, dirt getting onto the negative. I worked with this great crew shooting commercial's for a while and their loader was horrible. We'd get the transfer and the first 30 seconds of each load was dirty as all hell. I had a discussion with the lab and made sure they weren't somehow causing the problem. I then went over how the loader was putting the film into the mag's. Turns out, he didn't wear gloves and he'd touch the center of the film to help push it through into the take up side of the mag. He was leaving physical debris in the magazine itself, maybe left over food in his arm hair, don't know. I watched him load the Arri 3 once and you know that gate, it's simple. Man, by the time he was done, he had touched every surface of the film with his greasy fingers, yuck. It really dismayed me because I had no say since I was just a freelance gun. Unfortunately, the company moved to F900 and eventually went out of business, so that was the end of me shooting 35. Anyway, on small shows, it's just important to keep an eye on these things since you can't pay for the top people who know what their doing.

Since the film is being shot in 2.76:1 aspect ratio, the only screens which are setup for this are curved one's like the cinerama dome. So there are only 3 theaters in the US really capable of projecting the film as it was meant to be and the cinerama dome in Hollywood is one of them. My only worry is the anamorphic presentation. Since it's a curved screen, there needs to be a curved lens. The cinerama dome has one for 35/70, but I'm not sure if they have one for anamorphic 70. Having seen test footage, it's going to look amazing in 70mm. It's absolutely not so amazing in digital.

I personally think they ran out of money. There might have been a problem we don't know about, maybe a re-shoot or something and it drained the budget. The finish sure feels "polished" so if there was a budgetary problem, it didn't show up on screen. I'm frustrated with IMAX anyway. The use to be a large-screen high-resolution format and today they're just a joke. IMAX has turned into a way for cineplex owners to make more money. So IMAX is certifying garbage theaters, diluting the IMAX name. They put so much hype on laser 4k projection, yet their film format is 12k. So when you think about that, who really cares if a regular film is finished in 2k, if the IMAX version is only 4k. It's just bonkers I tells ya! Bonkers! They charge MORE MONEY for less quality!

Yea, David is spot on… clapper/loader. However, as a DP, I always load my own mags. First thing in the morning as we're setting up for the first shot, I'll give my AC/Gaffer some directions, go back to the camera truck and load some mags. This gives me ample time to load the stocks I feel are necessary for the day based on the sides. Plus, and this is something I always tell people wanting to get into film; It's your ass when poop goes wrong. If you let a loader build the magazine and it jams, ruining a take or worse off, the whole roll, nobody blames the loader, they blame you. I had two bad experiences with loaders and I will never do that again. I load my own mag's, cameras, I check my own gates and I insure personally that every foot of film running through the camera will be exposed properly and usable in the final product. If there is something wrong, I will be the one to decide what to do about it. I always aim for a 10:1 shooting ratio as well. Log sheets are VERY important. A lot of people skimp on these. However, they really help with post production. I always photocopy my log sheets before the lab get's them. This way, my script supervisor and I can look at what we shot in our post-shoot meetings and discuss what the next day will entail. Plus, I use those sheets for editing, especially when cutting on film. I've never once been in a position where I've shot too much and it's been a problem. Generally, when doing the budget, we account for a 10 - 20% overage when it comes to aspects of "film". This generally covers mistakes/over-shoots and allows the production to keep going without getting into financial worries. Yes, I've absolutely used up that extra 20% before, we've been "tight" on budget, but never overage enough to warrant taking from another department. It all comes down to proper budgeting and understanding the constraints of using film as a capture medium.

Ghost Protocal was finished at 6k, not 2k. We're talking about the most recent film, Rogue Nation being finished in 2k, which has no IMAX material, only 4 perf full-frame 35mm anamorphic.

I know, it's pathetic! Especially since they already booked the film in IMAX theaters.

If you light things properly, you can get away with a higher ASA stock and reduce that grain.

I've been watching some classic westerns recently and no, they weren't shot like that. Honestly, I'm very much into motivated lighting and I don't see much coming from that main set. However, we won't know until we see the film. Perhaps there are holes in the roof everywhere and that's why we see shafts of light coming down. I'm reserving judgement until I see the film.