Tyler Purcell

So does this mean current films shooting 35mm 4 perf anamorphic aren't using full-gate super 35 cameras?

Cool! Very interesting proposition, heck of a lot cheaper then renting anamorphic lenses.

Ahh got ya, you already have U16 stuff. What camera are you using with U16? Can you convert most cameras? Anamorphic 16 would be achieved with modern lenses from Hawk. They look fantastic and if you do a google search for Hawk Anamorphic 16, you'll find lots of samples. There have been many films shot 16mm anamorphic.

Why not shoot anamorphic? :shrug:

Yep, agreed. Balance is important, especially if you care about everything within each shot. A lot of filmmakers don't, over exposing or underexposing areas that aren't important.

I personally don't like the 'low light look' it's really bothersome. Filmmakers use it all the time and it's just silly. Good DP's can make a low-light look out of anything; super bright day or super well-lit interior. I've used that look many times over my life and never really liked it, looks too amateurish. I'm very much a "what's in camera is on screen" sorta filmmaker.

I love it and think it's a great marketing tool that more films should use.

Nice job David, it looks great! It looks just like those Hitchcock films.

Well, in my opinion, it all comes down to a cinematographers comfort level with new technology and support for that technology. There is A LOT of support for the Arri camera's, in all their various renditions. Plus, they're really good looking cameras, which adds comfort to the whole process. Most cinematographers are hired guns and they will work with whatever they're most familiar with first. Some people shoot Red, other's shoot Alexa and everyone else shoots film. Plus, the Alexa and Red workflows are pretty easy/simple to deal with. Everyone from the DIT's to the editors, know how it works. I do think the Blackmagic Ursa Mini will be used when it comes out, but the other cameras? I don't think they're even close at this point. Smaller films? Sure… bit hollywood films? It's gonna be a while.

Here are some suggestions: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=1145664&gclid=CIrvzJbU5cYCFc4WHwodvV0Akg&is=REG&m=Y&A=details&Q= http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=1132379&gclid=CJm7ouPT5cYCFdUTHwod7IMPcg&is=REG&m=Y&A=details&Q= http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1114774-REG/aputure_vs_2_v_screen_7_field.html http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1092989-REG/lilliput_665op_665_o_p_peaking_focus_video.html If you're on set, you can buy a cheap computer monitor with HDMI input, that's what I've done for most interior shoots and it works great.

Yep, that's the only reason you'd use 800 ASA in my book. When you can light things properly, you'd be up around 400 or even 200 ASA. A lot of times, I show up to shoots during the day, thinking I can shoot outside and something happens. I don't bring lights with me all the time, so I have to figure out a way to use practices 90% of the time. I keep a few small lighting accessories with me in my camera bag, just incase. Sometimes I screw up and the practical lighting sucks, but other times it comes out pretty darn good. I'll be honest, a lot of my stuff on Vimeo is me messing around with the camera, learning how to make it work right, rather then serious production work.

Camera looks great. Does the NPR have a registration pin? Are the Hawks that hard to find in LA? I want to shoot with them, but if they're hard/expensive to find, that maybe a deal killer. Might have to go with 1:66 which I'm OK with, just leave a bit of head room for 1.75:1 16x9 release.

I'm not a fan of rushing out and buying a camera for a project you won't see any money returning on. Owning good equipment can be a headache because you've got assets sitting around that you won't be using every day. Putting the budget into production design, actors, locations and decent rental equipment for production, is far more important in my opinion. As a cinematographer, it's very rare you'd be working on a paid shoot with your own equipment. Even if you did, getting a rental fee on top of your labor rate can be tricky. As a cinematographer, I never needed my own equipment. I'd simply put a budget together, talk with the rental houses, secure what I wanted and shoot. However, as time went on and I started producing my own projects, it became harder and harder to justify spending the money. The moment I heard about the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera, it was all over for me. I have zero interest in 8 bit 4:2:0 MPEG or RAW capture, which is what MOST camera's did prior to the BMPCC. Here was a camera that shoots 10 bit Pro Res 4:2:2 and 12 bit RAW for $1k. With an EOS lens adaptor, it could work with standard canon still glass. So lenses wouldn't be a problem and buying NEW wouldn't be expensive. I invested heavily in the BMPCC, 2 camera bodies, 4 prime lenses, audio equipment, everything you need to shoot. As a producer of content, it's nice having a little kit I can take anywhere. Unobtrusive, relatively inexpensive and best part, everyone thinks I'm shooting stills. So taking it places you normally can't take a big camera, is no problem. I do mostly documentary work, so it's a no-brainer to have a small package and make it work.

Nice, much better. It's amazing how much more grain stands out on the pro res file. Question… did you think about shooting anamorphic?

Nice camera test, thanks for sharing. For Vimeo, I upload Pro Res LT. It's easy to transcode and it's decent quality, a lot better then MPEG anything.

It's funny, you really see this phenomena when you watch a movie in film projection and then again in digital projection. Even though digital is generally crisper, each frame is on screen for a longer period of time because there is no shutter. Where a film projector is black>Fame>black>Frame, digital is Frame>Frame>frame, still being reproduced at 24FPS, those black bits are missing. A well timed film projector, won't have much if any perceivable flicker. IMAX Rolling loop projectors have even less flicker. I do agree the "flicker" is one of those elements that is missing with digital projection. However, I also feel it's an unnecessary side effect that doesn't "ADD" to the experience. If digital projection looked anything like film projection in color and contrast ratio, it would be OK. However, I have to see any digital projection that doesn't have muted colors and flat contrast.

Cinematographer by education, profession (what I get paid to do) and love of cinema. I've spent two decades behind the camera; ENG/NEWS, Documentary, narrative shorts/features, etc... I recently changed my title to "director" because I'm moving in that direction. However, I still book DP gigs all the time and will probably continue that trend forever.

I really like the pocket cameras because they're unobtrusive. For documentary/TV work, they're awesome because they look like still cameras and nobody knows you're shooting cinema-quality material. Plus, I can fit my two cameras, 4 prime lenses, mono-pod, viewfinder adaptor, mic's, audio recorder, gel's/diffusion and tools, in a small backpack. I can get on location and setup almost immediately,which is quite unique. I've shot two TV pilots and gobs of documentary work with my pocket cameras since I got them 18 months ago and I love 'em for down and dirty work. I'm a huge fan of the URSA mini and will try to throw one on a budget for a feature I'm slated to shoot next year. That will be my "A" camera, but it won't travel with me, it won't be the "grab it and shoot" sorta deal. I'll bring it out for bigger shoots and that's it. I just want the bigger imager more then anything else. Though I must admit, with the prices of 35mm cameras dropping like fly's… I may try to go that route someday as well.

I've never been a fan of shooting at lower resolution then your presentation format. That was the big problem with those few early DV movies, when blown up, they really looked bad. I didn't care for '28 Days Later' because there was no detail in the image. There was no "reason" to see it in the cinema because it was (at the time) shot in home video quality. At least with these new iPhone tools, you can shoot at acceptable quality for cinema digital projection. As a side note… I shot a short film on a DVX-100A in 24P in 2006. I was blown away at how good that camera looked in that mode. Years later, I took the original tapes, re-captured them and did an upres to 720p and unless I told you it was shot in DV, you may never know. So DV did come a long way over the years and at the end, became somewhat acceptable as a format.

So I'm listening to KPCC today and they talk about the new film 'Tangerine' which is shot on iPhones. Few months ago when I heard about this, I honestly thought it was some ultra low budget, directorial debut film, but then it comes out the director Sean Baker, has made many films. So I start doing some research and sure enough, these guys have taken iPhones and made a serious movie with them. Their budget for production was $100k, which you'd assume is enough to BUY a decent camera and shoot. Sean's last film was shot with a AG-AF100, which in my eyes is a bit better then an iPhone. They used this new Anamorphic adaptor from Moondog Labs: They also used Filmic Pro which allow the iPhone to record at 50Mbps @ 2K, though still 8 bit and still 4:2:0 color space. They could make aperture and focus changes on the fly as well. http://www.filmicpro.com/apps/filmic-pro/ So my question is… as a cinematographer, where do you draw the line? Shooting a feature film with iPhones is about as low as you can go today. Would any of you even contemplate doing something like that? I must say, I for one wouldn't even dream of it. However, now that it's been done and with a very popular subject to boot, maybe it's going to be the new fad? Outside of a few shots, the trailer looks pretty good.

Satsuki brings up a very important point… 'flicker' With film projection (24 frames per second) there is also a lot of black. That 'flicker' effect in my eyes is what makes going to the movies such a different experience then turning on your television. They could 'fix' that problem by adding a small shutter into digital projectors, but they don't because nobody cares. In fact, the staccato effect is something digital projection companies have clearly tried to fix. I saw "Jaws" 40th anniversary release a few weeks ago. I was extremely disappointed because it lacked all of the depth seen in the film print both contrast and color. The film print pops out at you, it's a very crisp film in both detail and grain structure. The digital release was soft, smooth and almost like watching a different movie. Worst off, there was substantial frame blurring, an effect you see a lot with digital projection. It reduces the sharpness of the image and makes it seem even more like television. Heck, I know it would have looked better on my home theater. Mind you, this was Arclight cinema's and a sold-out showing, so the audience was great and of course, I love the film, so my technical complaints were put aside. In terms of stills, I've been amazed how well original 35mm negative has held up over the years. I was doing some scanning last night and was shocked how good stuff I processed 20 years ago looked like it was shot yesterday. I love having a tangible/physical asset.

The pricing on old junk is absolutely astounding. I remember a few years ago, people would give it away, now it has some magical value? I don't think people are melting down old cameras, they're out there. Also… 35mm is VERY expensive. People don't realize stock cost on 35mm is more then double 16mm. SRII with some cheap glass, that should run you well under $7k. I'd sell what you have and get an SRII. I just think they're a superior camera (having shot both). I don't like the scoopic at all, rather have a bolex due to the lens selection alone.

It's a really old portable unit, but anyone who wants it can have it. Darn thing weighs a metric ton though, maybe too heavy for shipping honestly. It's tubes, direct drive motors, no belts.

It is a trolling question for sure… it's interesting to hear some of the answers though. ;) To me, the big things are: - Latitude - Color space - Resolution per frame (original camera negative) - Physical asset - Long term lifespan of asset - More concise filmmaking (get shot move on due to expense) - Far more options in post production When ILM were discussing Jurassic World, they requested the filmmakers shoot on film instead of digital because it offers them greater latitude in post production. To me, with so many films shooting digitally, this is sign that digital is not quite there yet. Even though the filmmakers had one of the new 6k Red cameras on location. In contrast, large format 65mm 5 perf is around 8k in resolution.

I got one for sale if your good with electronics. :) Me too! Robert is the man! I'm from Boston so I've been dealing with Cinelab for years.