Tyler Purcell

Well, here in the states, the average movie ticket is $12 dollars and most theaters in the city's are upwards of $16 - $20 depending on the show. Since the vast majority of people have a family of more then one adult, imagine paying $40 for the movie (two adults) and then buying one small popcorn and two bottles of water. That total comes to around $50 bux for two people simply watching 2hrs of entertainment. Forget about adding kids, forget about the "schedule" conflicts that forces people to scramble around after work in order to make the cinema. So when the cinema offers identical quality to your home television (which is what it is today), then the only reason to pay $50 is to see first run content. The moment first run content is available at home within a week of theatrical release, people are going to analyze the option. Either waste a lot of money for 2hrs of something that maybe complete crap or have dinner at home with the family and watch the movie at your leisure.

Man, I'd love to have an A-Minima in a backpack for "anytime" use! WOW how cool is that. :D

Audiences are only doing it because cinema has priced itself too high. Most people don't even think about going to the cinema because it's too damn expensive today. It's expensive because theaters had to pay millions to upgrade projectors so James Cameron could show Avatar and they have to amortize that price down to the consumers. Plus, the distributors are greedy and are pulling even more revenue's from the theaters for special poop like 3D. They're just greedy idiots killing their own industry.

I know a few of the local labs have render farms for REDCODE because they get so much material that needs to be transcoded immediately and the hardware cards DO help, but even with realtime decoding, it's still too slow. It's unfortunate RED have made a proprietary version of JPEG2000 because in the end, JPEG is an open source/Open GL compatible codec that works really well. Maybe not as "pretty" as Pro Res in terms of it's packaging, but still works well. To this day it depresses me we're still discussing proprietary codecs at all and RED is the only company unwilling to let people see behind the vail of secrecy.

I agree David, the 35mm photochemical blowup to 15/70 wouldn't look as good with our modern darker films. However, if filmmakers didn't push the stocks so much, if they didn't shoot on 500 and only shot on lower-grain stocks, it may work. The DMR process ruins the whole experience in my eyes, all of a sudden the movie has digital noise which looks like MPEG noise. This is a result of a filter that is trying to remove grain, but instead is making the image look worse. I know we've gone back and forth on the whole film vs digital projection, but I blame the projectionist for most of the problems not the format. When you go to Arclight cinema's and see their projectors, they are rock solid, I always go back to 'Interstellar' on 5/70 because it was pretty amazing. Yes the registration wasn't perfect, but everything else was. I've seen 'Interstellar' on 35mm, 5/70, 15/70 and digital. What I preferred the most was 5/70 because I like that aspect ratio and even though the IMAX 70mm screening blew my doors off, I didn't much care for the 35mm scenes, they were too grainy because the filmmakers in my eyes, choose the wrong stocks knowing they'd be blowing up to IMAX. You MUST shoot the film differently in my eyes for an IMAX blow up. 'Interstellar' had zero excuses to not shoot the dialog scenes in 5/70 and it still bugs me to this day. Would it have made a better movie? No… but it would have made those IMAX prints look amazing instead of just "OK". With that said, when digital projection first came out, it looked great because the projectors weren't high resolution enough. They created a warm soft image and in most cineplexes, the film projectors were old, tired and theater owners were unwilling to fix 'em up. They saw digital projection as an answer to solving those problems, remove the film projectors and install digital and now they didn't need to modernize the film projection. So doing an A/B comparison would yielded digital being better for obvious reasons. Fast forward a few years and film projection is practically dead, but those theaters still projecting film, have done a stealer job making it look good. This is because the audience is so use to digital today, they've gotta work double hard to make film look good. This is what the film industry USE to be like, people caring about what they project. Digital projection is a dead-end technology unfortunately. We will never be able to project a raw uncompressed 4k, 12 bit 4:4:4 file at your local cineplex. So everyone is seeing sub-standard compressed images at the theater. Where on film, you can theoretically see identical quality to the source material. The problem is, world-wide release dates and huge cineplexes with multiple screens, ruined the ability to make perfect prints. Movies started to become "one weekend wonders" and the cost of producing prints seemed illogical for only a week or two of theatrical running. It's this mindset that killed off film and it's the wrong mindset. Studio's are only interested in who has the biggest opening weekend and how quickly they can recoup their investment. In my eyes, cinema needs to rethink how it distributes and use the "theater" model. Make movies "special" again by using the roadshow method of distribution. Limited dates, limited locations, make the whole thing an experience that you will never forget. But alas, my utopia won't exist until multiplexes are dead and the rate they're going now it won't be to long now.

The biggest problem with RED that I see is related to the camera body being heavily accessory driven, the color science being a bit whack (more towards green) and the fact they use highly compressed files as their master. The concept is spot on and initially, there was nothing on the market LIKE the RED when it came out. So as a rental on a bigger film, the RED worked great because you could afford to accessorize properly and fix all the problems in post. On smaller projects or people who wish to own equipment, the RED just doesn't make much sense. The camera simply requires too many aftermarket accessories to make viable, doubling the expense in some cases. Plus for post production, the camera is a nightmare. Many editing software programs are able to read .r3d files, but not at full resolution and not in realtime, multi-layer editing. RED files take such a long time to transcode, most labs have render farms just to deal with RED files. Personally, I think the RED revolution is over. When the Blackmagic URSA mini finally hits the showrooms and rental houses, I think we'll see a shift. Arri and Sony have already pulled a lot of business away from RED, and in my opinion, the URSA Mini will pull another huge group of people as well. It's unfortunate because RED really started the digital cinema movement, but they kept releasing new and better cameras, pissing off their clientele to the point where a lot of people simply don't use them anymore because they're bitter. I've personally never been a fan, even during the initial release of the RED one, I saw the issues in the black, I saw the compression artifacts and post production problems as being a deal-killer. RED is a lot better today, they've fixed MOST of their issues, but not all of them.

I spent most of my life shooting films on the east coast, so I'm use to the humidity, you can cut it with a knife some days. :( I've not done the indoor and outdoor rigs, we'd just shoot one day outdoors and another day indoors.

Yea, the IMAX experience was poor. Honestly, IMAX has diluted itself so much, it really doesn't mean anything anymore. If Rogue Nation was finished on film and photochemically blown up to 15 perf 70mm, that would be a different story. However, Rogue Nation was not available to film theaters, only digital theaters. This means, most of the IMAX theaters that played it, were only 2k to begin with and that's my beef. IMAX is "suppose" to be the ultimate format, the best resolution possible. Yet they're pulling 15 perf 70mm projectors out and replacing them with either double 2k projectors OR double 4k laser, neither of which is anywhere near the quality of 5 perf 70mm. It's not like IMAX has a lot of theaters, striking prints for them isn't the end of the world cost wise. So their excuse is that most audiences don't care and henceforth, they don't care. But if IMAX doesn't care, who will?

I don't have time to watch many things, but I did watch the entire seasons of "House of cards", "Boardwalk Empire", "Breaking Bad/Better Call Saul" and "The Knick" all of which I thought were really well shot. I like well produced content that's based in reality. So many shows go over the top and push the limits of believability. Plus, these particular shows have great characters and content that really draws the audience in. I personally can't wait for season 2 of the "The Knick".

I've run my pocket cameras in direct sun for hours (in So Cal 112 degree heat) without any over heating. They do heat up, but not to the point of being unable to touch them. The RED's heat up A LOT more, they're almost untouchable after only a few minutes of use in the sun. You've gotta be very careful and not shock the cameras by reducing the temps greatly all at once. That's how you damage electronics and in some cases, put a layer of condensation on the elements when you go back to shooting due to the temp differential. Texas is also humid, so it's far better to just work with what you've got and not worry about it.

Yea, I've had nothing but troubles with non IRND filters and my blackmagic cameras. It took me forever to figure out the problem because I've mostly shot on film and the problem doesn't exist.

The nice thing about film school is that you have a locker full of equipment that you most likely won't have access to again. Plus, you've got people who can critique your work on a level which is very difficult to find in later years. This is why a lot of people choose to make more normal films, it has nothing to do with equipment fascination, it has everything to do with learning the narrative form and demonstrating it. The moment you make something that totally goes left field and doesn't follow any real standard, you are no longer being judged by your peers. The audience doesn't know what's a mistake and the filmmaker can say everything was "intentional" which doesn't really teach you anything. You aren't "learning" from your peers and professors, because it's nearly impossible to critique since there is no set guidelines. In your film, exposure was all over the place, the audio was poorly captured and the editing was erratic. I have no idea if those things were purposeful or just poor filmmaking. Plus… the great thing about the experimental genre is that anything goes. So you really don't have to demonstrate cinematic form and equipment doesn't really play a huge role. So you can shoot anything at any time with any camera. Thus, after your done with school, you can buy a $300 camcorder and make as many experimental films as you want. I agree the great thing about film school is the ability to experiment. However, you can experiment within the confides of a standard genre, showing cinematic form and at the same time, building a resume of content you can use in the future.

On that particular show, it was a 2 week show. First week was prep, second week was shoot. No deal memo's, just started working (it was a big company who hired us, so I felt secure) Not all of us got screwed, that's the funny part. The producers, director and final editor got paid. The production crew including set designers and cast, didn't get paid. I later found out, the assistant editors and graphics people, didn't get paid either. Since the final post lasted months, they needed one or two editors, so they waved cash in front of their eyes, but the production was so quick, they just didn't bother. We didn't really know one another, it was such a quick shoot, people didn't form bonds. I didn't even get a list of everyone involved, it was quite strange. So filing a class action suit was impossible. Same thing happened on a later shoot where I was a cast member. There was a clause in our contracts where if the company went out of business, they didn't have to pay us. So guess what happened? This is all very typical stuff. I figure it happens every single day since it's happened to me on 5 occasions and I haven't worked on very many reality shows. So yea, I warn people all the time, if you work on reality, you'd better cash those paychecks before you commit.

Not to be blasé, but as a filmmaker, I just see lazy filmmaking. I'm glad someone else likes it, just goes to show; there is something for everyone. However, the noir and experimental genre's, usually work best with some elements of realism. Plus, a lot of young filmmakers spend too much time experimenting with concepts that aren't viable on the open market. I've always told young filmmakers to spend more time focused on creating product which are marketable. That's where you'll find success in the long-term and hopefully a career in the media arts. Good luck with your future filmmaking!

Nice find on the job, but "experience required" is hard to get.

Over the years I've been involved with many reality TV shows from shooting/editing a few pilots to eventually staring in one. I'll say this much, there is very little money in reality. Everyone is worked to death and paid peanuts for their efforts. All of the shows I worked on were semi-scripted, as the action was going on, the producers were building scripts and after they had enough raw, B-Roll material, they'd shoot what they scripted. Then send the material to post, who would suggest even more re-shoots to come up with a final episode. Reality shoots very fast, so the shooters are generally unbelievably busy, working 16hr days is pretty normal and because they're non-union freelance, you're paid a standard hourly rate. I've worked on reality shows as a backup camera op as well and was on stand-by for 48hrs. This means, I had to literally have the camera by my side, on location waiting for notes. Over the years, I've found the producers of lower-end reality will say anything to get people working. Most of it turns out to be bullshit, like the whole thing about being paid. Yea, they say you'll be paid, but until you've cashed a paycheck, make the assumption you aren't going to get paid. I know that sounds ridiculous, but that's how reality works. I never got paid for my last reality show, they had over 100 people working on it and on payday, they literally shut down the doors and closed off all communication. The show was broadcast, my name was on it, but there were no contracts. So yea… that's kind of an extreme example, but it can happen. The whole thing about bonuses, that's a HUGE red flag, something one of the reality producers would say to bring you in. Today, I won't do reality anymore. I've been screwed countless times, sometimes by people I thought were my friends. I've learned that's the way the ball rolls these days, so I just gave up and wiped my hands clean on being involved. Be careful, don't take anything for granted and don't give anyone footage until your paid.

Bolexes and super 8 cameras share very little technology with Arri or Panavision cameras. What the OP needs is an old timer who specializes in fixing Bolexes. http://www.bolexusa.com Super 8 cameras are easier as the "S8 movement" has become pretty huge in the last few years. http://www.pro8mm.com In terms of becoming a bench technician for professional film cameras, those days are unfortunately over. The rental houses are selling their film cameras, the technician's are being laid off and those who still retain positions are being forced to learn digital camera service, which is all about electronics. Studying film camera service as a career, is a dead end unfortunately. You'd be better off going to electrical engineering school with a minor in digital imaging. Then you'd be valuable to a rental house, but you'd still need to know each of the cameras inside and out; Red, Arri, Sony, Canon, Blackmagic, Phantom, etc.. So the first step would be interning at a rental house and learning the ropes. From experience, this doesn't work well because the rental houses are so busy, it's hard to find the quality time necessary with someone to learn things quickly. Even if you had a degree, even if you were hired right away because of your expertise in electronics, the learning curve is tremendous. So yea, those are my thoughts.

Right and as a result, the music industry is dead. The only way to make money is via ticket sales to concerts. If you can't draw people to concerts, you're living in your grandmothers basement selling music on iTunes, working as a waiter and playing nights. Plus, music (dollar per minute) is far cheaper to make then a low budget feature film. Even huge world-wide tours of top artists have less invested and make more money, then most films. They aren't honoring you by having something you made in the background as they vacuum. In reality, what they're doing is saying your content has zero importance to them. I worked at two different laserdisc stores and Blockbuster during my youth because I enjoyed watching movies so much and back then, it was the only way to get stuff for free. You had to WORK in order to enjoy something, rather then today where anyone can download a torrent and watch HD content for free. Great filmmakers either have the time to sit down and watch a movie, or they don't bother. Same goes for albums, do you really think someone who cares about an artist would only listen to their stuff in the background? The problem is, the people who care are dying off and the people who don't care are having babies. You can argue "thats progress" but it really isn't, in my eyes it's the death of the industry I've struggled so hard to get into and now just as I get close to being successful, things are falling apart in front of my eyes. You may be OK with someone viewing your content in the background, but for the vast majority of filmmakers, it's just the opposite.

It's a cute film, saw it a long time ago, it's been available on european streaming for a while. I didn't even know it was a 3D film.. maybe I should go see it again! :)

Cinelab #1 Pro8mm #2 Either one will do good work for you. Of course Pro8mm is in California, which makes it a bit tricky.

Welcome to the forum! I would have liked it to be narrated, seeing a bunch of car shots isn't that interesting unfortunately. I do marketing work like this all the time and getting a "professional" looking image/feel is important, but telling people something about what you do, is even more important. Here is an example of what I mean. It shows off the product, but it also tells a story.

Yep, 'Interstellar' 15 perf was scanned in and out at 6k. The 70mm 5 perf prints were blown up from 35mm and I assume they 'cut in' scanned-out 5 perf material for the IMAX shots. If it were my film, I would have done made the 5 perf prints entirely photochemically with blow down 15 perf to 5 perf. I would have also done the compositing photochemically as well, but that's me. LOL Digital intermediate has truly destroyed films potential quality. The mere concept of doing something in lower resolution to save money on a 200 million dollar film, is an outrage. I've done the math, I've met with the right people, I've been to Panavision and FotoKem and had discussions, there is absolutely no reason why these big movies going to IMAX, can't shoot 5 perf 70mm and do a photochemical finish. This way our "final" will be as much quality as 5 perf 70mm, which as we've argued many times… is between 6k and 8k… a lot more then 2k. I'm sure someone in the IMAX theater would notice the bump in quality because what I saw looked bad. Jurassic World in contrast looked MUCH better.

Great stuff David, the car shot is so reminiscent of the Hitchcock films, I love it! :) Interesting discussing the rear projection situation, for sure something to think about in the future.

Cinema in my eyes is like theater. You can watch theater at home on your television, but the experience is totally different and most plays, aren't available at all. This forces people to stand up and go to the theater, which is where the money is made. It's the same with cinema in my eyes. If you give people what they want, how they want it, you as the creator have lost all of your control. The decline in cinema going is directly a result of price vs quality in my eyes. Give people a $10 good movie, they may come back. I've had decent home theaters since the mid 90's. However, back then I was living at the cinema. I'd watch the movie and I was so excited when my favorite movies were available on laser disk. I'd go out, buy them and watch them over and over again, just to have the experience once more. However, back then video formats weren't up to snuff with the cinema, so there was excitement for going to the theater. Today, most movies look BETTER at home because theater chain's spent so much money on first gen digital projectors, your TV is probably higher resolution. My home theater today is excellent, but it's not the cinema in any stretch of the imagination. Just re-watching "Interstellar" 14 feet wide on my living room wall, wasn't anything like seeing it in 70mm at the Cinerama Dome. This is the problem and it's the death of cinema. We're already making 'consumer dictated' cinema, most films fall into that category. We're back in the 50's with studio's mostly churning out lifeless crap and the independents loosing their shirts trying to produce decent content for no money. On the ground level, dealing with this stuff every day of the week, I'm learning there is very little money in VOD. I know that sounds dumb, as many companies are ramping up, but trust me, they will all fail soon. This is why Apple hasn't released their service yet, because the studio's haven't figured out a way of making any money. The music industry has already lost their shirt and it just keeps getting worse for them. Right, but if your hand-fed everything, you won't ever leave the house! LOL :) This is true when your making a mass-audience film for teenagers. If your making a film for educated people, then all those things matter. My parents will call me right after the see a film if the audio has something weird, or there was an out of focus shot, even if it was intentional and they're not filmmakers. So yes, regular people notice and it does make a difference. Watching Rogue Nation, my dad pointed out how the anamorphic lenses had out of focus edges and how he "disliked" that. Not a "quality" thing, but it's amazing how much the general audience notices. The Russian's cracked the BluRay code in 8hrs. They cracked the DVD screener code in 2hrs. You just send the file to them and they'll blur when the code shows up on the screen, it's at a particular time. Plus, VOD is streaming and even if they had a code locked to your name, you could use a false name. Trust me, I've been dealing with piracy on both sides for decades now, since the very beginning in the mp3 days. I know the tricks and there is NO way to track stuff with digital mediums. We're analog beings, not digital, so in the process of converting it so we can see the image, it's very easy to remove any digital codes. Spotify has been a big help to people who just want music in the background. There are many services like that today and they all work well, even the free one's. However, piracy was mostly effected by iTunes back when they started the online store. Now people could download that one or two songs they wanted from a certain album for only .99 cents each. People will pay that small amount to own the song, even pirates. However, the music industry almost died in the process, most of the "old" industry is long dead. So yes, music piracy has declined substantially from the MP3 days. However, movie and television piracy has increased over the last few years and cinema can't take the hit the music industry took. Today's films are so expensive, one or two big mistakes can lead to disaster. I'd personally rather have 500 dedicated eyes see my film in a theater with no interruption, then 15,000 people at home watching my movie in the background as they do work. Honestly, do you really think people pay close attention to any content at home? At least in the cinema, they paid for it and try to get their $16 bux out of it.

I don't think there was a 3d conversion of "Rogue Nation". I agree David, it's amazing how the industry isn't even at 4k yet. It goes to show you, they really are delivering a sub-standard product to cinema's today.