Tyler Purcell

Got some numbers for you guys! So here is the cost to make a 65mm film through and through: 8003659 50D 1000ft = $1247 Retal 1662428 500T 1000ft = $1400 Retail 8 min per 1000ft roll 120 min total length of film 8:1 shooting ratio 106 rolls of film (MAX) $148k production stock Processing $35,000 Telecine $20,000 Feature = 16,000 feet inter positive $62,000 answer print $14,000 Audio= $2720 $135,000 + $15,000 (audio licensing) + 6k (negative cut + splice) Panavision Sound camera package = $120,000 for a 6 week shoot $180,000 (processing) + $148,000 (stock) + $240 camera = $568,000 So for $568,000 you can pay for 65mm, if you're efficient.

Anytime "i" is used after a frame rate, it refers to "interlaced". So 50i is an interlaced version of 25 FPS. So 25P is the progressive version. Broadcast TV is interlaced, that's how they can fit so much data down the pipe and make it work. One field contains half the data and the other field contains the other half. This creates an image on your TV at 50 fields per second or 50i. This is an old frame rate which was generated by the frequency of electricity, 50hz in Europe and 60hz in America (50i/60i) Interlaced material has many benefits, it's easier to do post production slow mo where two fields are blurred together. It's generally a smaller file size because there is less data. The disadvantages are also pretty big, as David said, the scan lines can cause some jagged edges on motion shots. So broadcast generally uses interlaced and everything else is usually progressive.

It's true, nobody bothered updating the standards set during the 1930's. If you look at technology, standard vertical 35mm is the most archaic way to shoot and project film. The problem is, once those standards were set, nobody wanted to change them. Rolling loop horizontal projectors are a far better technology, one that would have worked well with 35mm due to a substantially larger image size. So film as a medium isn't the problem, the problem comes down to super old technology that should have been retired in the 50's and wasn't because the industry was looking for cheaper and cheaper methods to make and distribute content. Digital projectors are just as sensitive to temperature. Plus, the DLP chips can very easily fall out of alignment on their own, something theater owners are less likely to bother fixing. I've never seen a problem where the film is rolling with no lamp or something and it needed to be rewound. That's just being a poor projectionist and I would ask for my money back, even if they COULD rewind it. Has nothing to do with the format. Most theaters where I grew up, stopped the film before the credits rolled completely so they could fill the house with more people and squeeze in an extra screening each day. Rolling loop horizontal film projectors are a step in the right direction. Cleaning the film before it enters and as it exits the projector, is a step in the right direction. Projection booths being "clean rooms" is a step in the right direction. Wait… are we talking IMAX? I've seen IMAX prints that have played for 6 months, 10 times a day which look perfect their first showing and their last. With film projection, if the print is made properly, all the projector has to do is shine a light through it. The "image" is developed in the lab, making the job at the theater more of a personal one. A talented projectionist can project a film properly without too much fuss even if they're controlling multiple theaters at once. With digital projection, the image doesn't exist until it's at the theater. Nobody can inspect it, nobody can verify it's OK, what you see is what you get. It's not the "directors vision" it's whatever the calibration level of that particular projector is that day. There are many problems with DLP, the biggest one is imager mirror size and shape. Imagers are generally the same size as 35mm film projection. However, the pixels inside that imager have square edges. So when they flicker, you get aliasing on any hard edge. This is particularly noticeable on any credit sequence or shot with solid square edges. The DLP chips themselves get super hot due to all that light hitting them all the time. They use a liquid cooling system to help keep them working, but it's not very efficient and they tend to get super hot. When they cool down during after-hours, the chips tend to shift ever so slightly. That shifting causes color bleeding over time. Plus, the colored glass elements fade over time, which causes substantial color shift. Even with laser DLP technology, imager shift is still a huge problem. You can't avoid it because when you try to take three things and make them line up perfectly, it's never going to be perfect forever. Calibration is a constant battle and most theaters won't bother. In terms of contrast ratio, the top of the line laser DLP projector is 2,500:1, which is about the same as 35mm film. So nothing really unique to the format what so ever. Projection in theater is limited in contrast ratio due to how much light is being pushed through the system. Burbank AMC, Arclight Cinema's in Hollywood, The El Captain and the Chinese theater are the FOUR test beds for developing projection technology in the US. So if it looks like crap in those theaters, it's going to look FAR worse in others. The Arclight and El Captain have never blown me away, they look OK, but not anything crazy. I was impressed with the new IMAX laser projectors looked when I saw Jurassic Park. They have a true 4k source and overlay two 4k projectors to equal 8k of total resolution. It's a gimmick which will work for a while and it looked pretty good. Too bad each projector is $1.5M and there are only 4 theaters in the US which have them. Let's face it, theaters aren't in the business of spending money, distributors already rape their profits, so what do they care. The industry said no more projectionists and that was it, everyone bought cheap Barco 1920X1080 projectors and laid off their projectionists. They could care less what is better quality, for them it's a cost savings. So back to what I said about film projection earlier. If the lab's do a good job, what comes out of the lab will be the same thing the filmmakers saw in their final screening before release. It should look the same at any theater around the world, the projectionist will be the only person capable of ruining that experience. With digital projection, nobody really knows if it's calibrated or not. Besides, you aren't seeing the full color range with DLP because it's only dealing with three primary colors and mixing them to create whatever the digital data entails. Film has FAR more substance within it, the color gamut isn't confined to three colors mixed together. Sure. digital technology will change over the years, but theaters have already been forced to invest in the current lineup of projectors. It's doubtful they will put in any effort to do the same thing in another two or three years. I know it's too late, but it's annoying. Digital projection is amazing, it's killer technology, but it's really a toy compared to photochemical. The only reason we can't see photochemical prints properly is due to projection technology and it's sad nobody tried to make that a reality.

Couldn't agree more. :)

First thing, outside of news and multi-camera studio shows like game shows, everything on television is colored, just like a feature. I haven't once delivered a show for broadcast without critical color being done and that was working for Discovery and TLC. It's just part of the delivery requirements and most of that is due to matching broadcast spec (which is a requirement). The neat thing about the blackmagic cameras is that they shoot in three mods; CinemaDNG Raw (like camera negative), Flat Pro Res (which is watchable) and Rec709 (which looks normal). So if you're doing a rush job, you can shoot in Rec709 mode and deliver exactly what you shoot. If you're doing something that you can work with in post, then you shoot in the Flat Pro Res mode. Edit the show, apply a LUT afterwards over the whole project, make a few tweaks and be done with it. If you need a wider dynamic range, that's when you shoot in CinemaDNG. Indoors, you don't need to shoot with anything special. However, if you run and gun, documentary style, having that dynamic range will help considerably in post. When you make a mistake with exposure, you can fix it in post. Having shot with standard REC709 ENG cameras from Sony and Panasonic for 15 years, it was nearly impossible to have the sky exposed properly and our subjects as well. With the blackmagic you can and in most cases have even more dynamic range then necessary.

He's a lawyer… he probably has rich friends as well. I mean money talks and it's easy to pay someone to fix up a screenplay and decent crew to make your film look good. You watch his trailers, nothing has real cinematic vision, just cheap tricks that are used over and over again. I'm sure his budgets are in the $250k range and it's pretty easy to make that money back if you have the right connections.

Well, if you make a good product, you should be able to make money off it. Maybe not in a conventional way, but surly something will come back from the investment. To me, the investment is more about proving my ability to write stories that are entertaining and have a strong directors vision. It would be something my crew and I would do on our spare time, weekends and nights after work. We all have industry gigs, so it's hard to commit otherwise. Getting people to take time off from work is nearly impossible, especially four of my actors. So I write a script around that problem, making it a lot easier for production. This particular film is going to be tough to make however, it may take two months of shooting every weekend and a few nights during the week here and there. However, with a dedicated crew and most important, cast… it's all doable. Gotta start somewhere ya know? If you don't move forward, you might as well give up.

It's ok… I won't have any of my own money invested, so if I can't sell it, who cares. People are so dead-set on theatrical distribution and making money, but I'm not. I don't have any "investors", so there is no reason to make anyone happy but myself. I will give the film away for free if I need to, just so people can see the work and be entertained. Everything pay's off in the end… this film WILL boost my career, even if it's simply through IMDB and cutting a better demo reel. The only real way to make a good theatrical film is to spend around 1.5 - 3M. I'm already writing my $1.5M script and I already have interest from investors, PLUS a top producer who wants in. Having a meeting about it tomorrow actually. So from my perspective, you either make the products and prey someone will watch them, or you don't make the product and sit at home pretending to be a filmmaker. I'm kinda tired of the latter, I'm ready to make the product. Maybe someday I will make money off one of my films, but until that day, I'm perfectly happy giving it away and showing people it's possible to do a lot with very little.

If you're a filmmaker who owns all the equipment necessary for making a film. Who doesn't need "support" outside of actors, it reduces the complication substantially. Small crew of friends, all getting something out of the creative process, it can be done and it can be a good product. You just need to produce a product that's marketable, that's it. Over simplification? Sure… but when was the last time you saw an ultra low-budget indy that even tried to make a normal every day movie? I haven't seen any. All of them try to do something crazy. Studios can make 50, $13M films each year, they just need filmmakers capable of telling a story for cheap money. Everyone makes overly complex stories, which require lots of production and post production work that inflates the budget. They have big crews, which require permits, insurance, crazy schedules, unions. Cut all that out, select all and push the delete button. You don't need any of that to make a movie, you just need a good story, good actors and some luck. I've done it with shorts and now I'm going to do it with a feature. Here's hoping it comes together!

Thanks! :) Yea, I shoot motorsports stuff with my cameras constantly, so they're dropped, covered in mud, getting wet from rain, dust like you wouldn't believe and super hot, practically melting the rubber grip. That's why I invested in cheap glass, so when I damage anything, it's no big deal to replace. I've destroyed my wide angle lens already, it got splashed with salt water from one of my shoots and it dried leaving salt crystals behind which destroyed the coating. Didn't think that could happen on modern glass, but it caught me off guard. A LOT of my work is near/on the water, so I've gotta be conscious about cleaning. Man do I love that kit… honestly, I wouldn't even use an URSA mini to shoot what I normally shoot, too much camera, too risky!

" Yep, so that begs the question, what is the formula for success? I felt pretty honored to have a standing ovation at the premiere of my last film. The BBC calling it a "must see for anyone who loves cinema". I mean, it's not a great movie, I could do a lot better if we had three pennies instead of two. However, it's toured the world; Germany, France, UK, Switzerland, Spain, Italy, Canada and the United States. Tens of thousands have seen it, we've even had it play at some pretty big theaters like the Arclight in Hollywood, yet I haven't made a single penny off it OR received work from it. You hobnob after the screenings with Hollywood elite, they ask for your card, you wine and dine, but nothing comes of it. After a few days, it's all forgotten and you've moved onto your next project. So if that three year experience hasn't helped at all, what does it take to be successful? Well, I've posed that question to so many filmmakers and I've hit so many road blocks. I have so many friends who are on the verge of success, yet haven't cracked that nut. When I ask them why, they don't really have an answer because they don't understand either. Heck, one of them was on "Breaking Bad" and hasn't worked a day since. You'd think being a camera operator on BB would be good for yee'ol resume, but it wasn't because it's "TV" and feature guys want "feature" operators and nobody wants a 35mm operator. I mean seriously? I've been pigeonholed the same way for years, doesn't matter how good your reel is. One thing I did was stop giving people my reel. I simply made a few short films and send people the links. They can see my directing, shooting, editing and coloring skills in 3 minutes with a complete story. So far, anyone who has watched my shorts, has hired me. However, getting them to sit down and watch, it's kind of difficult. Demo reels can be seriously inflated as well and honestly, I could produce a highly inflated "editing" reel as I've worked on shows for Disney and Fox. However, I don't do that and I think people appreciate getting a picture of what your capable of doing, IF it's good work. If your short film is some experimental piece or a slasher/horror genre, good luck. I also stepped my website up a lot, including my producers on the list, so there names will show up in google attached to my company. I think the big step is really simple and straight forward. I'm tired of pussy footing around, making shorts that go nowhere and having people come to my house to see them in decent quality because the internet looks like poop. The only solution is features, make something good and cheap (it is possible), and self distribute. Get it up on the big screen, get people to review it, show people your capable of doing the work and have passion for cinema. Go to the screenings, meet people, hand out business cards, promote the living poop out of your work and most importantly, sell it when your done promoting. If you can prove success, even if it's super limited, doors will start to open. Telling someone "my last film is on Netflix" really helps. Finally… keeping your ambition low is so important. Writing a film that could be rated PG, that has a good message, no violence, no special effects, no car chases, sticking to a great script that's shootable for under $50k, that's the ticket. It's the most important thing people forget and it's why so many low budget films just flat-out suck, they try to be overly creative and in the process, fall flat on their face. Sun is cheap/free, shoot outdoors! Desert is cheap/free, shoot in the desert! Friends are cheap/free, not much dialog! get it? Now all ya gotta do is be creative with those elements. :) Dang… did I give too much away? HA!

I agree Adrian, I find MOST of my work comes from my network. I put feelers out there and friends hook me up. I posted a little blurb about needing work on Facebook and honestly, even that helped considerably since a lot of my friends didn't even know I wasn't working full time. However, I haven't been able to take much film related work, been doing more IT stuff, post production consulting. I spent a month re-building the render farm at a local post house, because I know how to do it and needed the work. I'd be screwed right now if I didn't have other expertise. Justin kinda hit the nail on the head, you've gotta dedicate and be passionate about it. Heck, I went all out and bought a bunch of camera and post production equipment so I'd have no excuse. It's been a great enabler and pushed me to learn new things like Avid and how to shoot with modern digital cinema cameras.

Thanks :) The camera buried! Find the headphone cable… it goes to an iPhone looking thing in the middle. HA! Glass is everything anyway. ;)

I too am looking for freelance gigs and it's just impossible to find good ones. There are so many top people out of work due to the industry downsizing over the last 6 years, it's hard to compete. You either get stuck working on horrible "Zombie killer bunnies from hell IV" and get paid $1000 bux for 16 days or you sit in an office working 12hr days contemplating running your car off a bridge as you sit in 2hrs of traffic going to and from work. Talented people don't have a chance to succeed without investing money in themselves and it's hard to do that when your working freelance. You've almost gotta have a full time job, shoot every weekend and pray whatever you make, turns people on. :sigh: I'm currently prepping my first directorial feature right now, literally as I type this. I'm budgeting to have enough money so everyone gets paid. I can't imagine doing a feature film, being on set with a reliable crew and not paying them. Good pay? Probably not… depends on what you bring to the table ya know? I'd rather have 6 exceptional well-trusted people on the ground then 12 people running around with there heads cut off, like most low-budget/no-budget shows I've worked on. All I need is 6 people… (gaffer, grip, camera support, camera assistant, AD and Sound operator) We can all "double-up" roles and make shooting that much quicker. Anyway, yea I hear your rant about no-pay… just check out the editing jobs that are no pay, it's crazy! Ohh and Adrian, we'll be talking soon! If I do this film, I could use your help for sure. ;)

Whole rig weighs less then the FS7 body. Records for 110 minutes on a 64gb card and cost me around $5k to build, including 5 lenses, wireless audio, tuns of cards and batteries.

That's correct, I was agreeing with you earlier. The camera shoots in both formats. I just download several XAVC samples this morning and the LONG GOP versions worked fine, the intra frame versions didn't work at all. Avid, Premiere, Final Cut 7 or Final Cut X. Now, I read FCPX added support in this most recent version, but it's not a free update, so I don't have it. Quicktime has no idea what the files are, so Avid can't AMA link them either. Premiere and Final Cut 7 can see them, but when you double click on them in the bin, it won't recognize. I have the XAVC plugin installed, it allows the XAVC Long GOP file to playback perfectly on both my systems. I can't download the updated plugin because it requires Mavericks and people who work in the industry on stable systems, can't constantly be updating operating systems because a camera manufacturer makes them. I physically can't move to Mavericks or Yosemite because they break FCP7 and Avid 7 has major glitches. So no, XAVC Intra Frame is not natively supported by Avid, Final Cut Pro 7, Final Cut Pro X or Premiere. It requires special software to function and I tried for two hours to make it work and it flat-out doesn't work. Pro Res is built-in to the operating system. All versions are quicktime native allowing drag and drop editing on Avid, Premiere, Final Cut Pro 7, Final Cut Pro X and DaVinci without any importing or transcoding. Plus, Pro Res is backwards compatible down to Mac OS 10.6, so there is no reason to update/upgrade anything for it to work. I've been using my pocket camera like an ENG camera for almost two years. I've done tuns of run and gun shooting with them, using my shoulder rig, follow focus and matte box. The kit works fantastic. I keep an ND filter on the front all the time and pulling it out is easy. The blackmagic cameras have focus tools, histogram and zebra's to help make sure your shot is perfect, without resorting to zooming in and out. It's not an ENG camera, but who said you need to shoot with an ENG camera? If you're a good cinematographer (this is the cinematography forums) then you can use any camera and still get a good image. I only recommended the URSA Mini due to the quality, but since he's going broadcast, I'd change my mind and focus more on a 1080p camera. The Pocket camera is very "decent" and having shouldered the Ursa Mini, it's more then decent. I'm a filmmaker, so I shoot and edit mostly. It's my business to understand technology, that's where I make money. People ask me all the time what camera to buy and I hand them my pocket and they're blown away by the ease of use and results. I'm a steadfast blackmagic devotee, their workflow IS the future. You may not think that, but with Arri adopting the identical workflow, (pro res/Davinci) that's the current film industry standard. It will take time, but eventually that workflow will make into broadcast because they're about 5 years behind. Frankly, I refuse to own any Sony products after owning and working with them for two decades. I don't like the processing they use, it's overly crisp and over-exposure highlights clip harshly, even on the FS7. It's a problem Sony's always had, they focus on specification rather then a good looking image. To me, image is everything, thats why I don't shoot ENG anymore because it doesn't matter what the stuff looks like. I care about image quality and thats why I shoot Pro Res with Blackmagic cameras.

Yea, Long GOP is the efficient codec. XAVC Intra Frame isn't nearly as efficient and on the FS7 it's limited to 4:2:2 10 bit encoding. In fact, standard Pro Res 422 is nearly identical in efficiency for file sizes. Pro Res was developed at a time (2005 - 2007) where uncompressed 10 bit was the only real solution to get quality in post production. It knocked the bit rate by 1/5th, retaining identical quality. It was never developed to be a capture codec. It was meant to be a editing/finishing codec. MPEG has been around for decades, Pro Res was first introduced in 2006. This is a cinematography forum, not a broadcast news gathering forum. I shot ENG news and produced live news programming for 8 years. Quality wasn't even a consideration, camera's shoot, stuff is edited quick and put on TV. In fact, most TV is "disposable" and absolute quality doesn't really mean anything. They were the last to convert from analog tape to digital, they were the last to convert from linear editing to non-linear and they were the last to upgrade from standard definition to high definition. Up until that switch from standard definition to high definition, MPEG formats didn't even exist in the world of "television". Now MPEG owns that world because they're stuck broadcasting in that format and licensing MPEG is a lot cheaper then Pro Res. So cameras are less expensive and camera companies can easily make proprietary formats like DVCPRO-HD/AVCHD (Panasonic) XDCAM/XAVC (Sony), .r3d (Red), which require special workflows. So you just don't like anything new and different. Blackmagic designs has struck gold with the URSA mini (which isn't even out yet). FS7 is a 23.6 x 13.3 sensor Ursa Mini is a 25.34x14.25 sensor FS7 captures at 4096 x 2160 max (using external recorder) Ursa Mini captures at 4608 x 2592 (max sensor use) or 4096 x 2304 (16x9) FS7 records XAVC at 10 bit 4:2:2 at best (can capture 12 bit raw with lots of money) Ursa Mini captures 14 bit 4:4:4 3:1 CinemaDNG RAW at best FS7 records at 60fps @ 4k and 180fps @ HD Ursa Mini records at 60fps @ 4k and 120 @ HD FS7 has a rolling shutter Ursa Mini has a global shutter, switchable to rolling for lower light situations. FS7 uses special XQD memory cards (128gb $689 USD) special reader required Ursa Mini uses standard CFast card's (128gb $369 USD) no special reader required FS7 uses special Sony E-mount lenses (requiring adaptors to use any normal glass) Ursa Mini uses standard cinema-grade PL mount lenses with EOS/EF option. FS7 has dual 3G-HDSDI outputs and no timecode or reference Ursa Mini has a 12G-HDSDI output, timecode input and reference input. Plus industry standard 4 pin 12v in and output. Plus industry standard battery connection mount. It also has built in 1/4 rail mounts. FS7 retails @ $7999 body only Ursa Mini retails @ $4999 + $1499 for OLED viewfinder + $395 for shoulder kit = $6893 body only Sure, the URSA doesn't have the low-light capabilities of the FS7 or A7S for that matter. However, all the other functionality is either close, equal or better in many ways. Plus, when I'm done shooting with the blackmagic cameras, I can AMA link the files and edit many video layers in real time, without even batting an eye. Throw the final piece into DaVinci for color and send to the client without having to render anything outside of the final output for delivery. Pro Res is a great workflow, no it's not as efficient as MPEG, but neither is film and it's still unrivaled by digital.

Sorry, I did mistype, it's MPEG4, same as H264. Here are the problems with MPEG files: MPEG files don't have "frames", they have sequences of frames. So the software has to interpolate what any given frame looks like. This interpolation is done via the CPU, making it extremely processor intensive because MPEG is a very complex mathematical equation. Imagine having cut's which land on non-frames? Then imagine doing a dissolve between those areas and expecting it to maintain resolution, it just doesn't. On 4k 10 bit 4:2:2 XAVC, the difference may not be perceptible, but trust me, it's there. Pro Res is a 1:1 codec. That means it's inherently lossless throughout post production. When played back, it uses the GPU through open GL, which means there is ZERO CPU being used. When you edit, the codec doesn't need to be unpackaged, there is a literal 1:1 moving of the data into the render files. When you export again, there is a 1:1 bit for bit moving of the data. So camera original will have IDENTICAL quality to the same codec delivery file. There are lots of other problems related to MPEG files as well, more then I can get into. My point is, why strangle your production being stuck to MPEG files? There is no reason for it when Pro Res is such a better codec.

The URSA Mini has either an EF mount (canon still glass) or PL mount. I personally like the EF mount because the glass is a lot cheaper, you can buy cheaper zoom lenses for still cameras as well. I personally use EF primes because I'm not a fan of slow glass, I need fast glass because I'm always doing low-light stuff with my cameras. The GoPro's work great, but they're a speciality camera, really designed for certain shots that you need. They don't mix well with any camera because they have an 8 bit 4:2:0 color space. I think capturing 10 bit 4:2:2 as a minimal, is very critical when working on bigger shows. The moment you get into post production and start coloring, it makes a huge difference. Just a side note about the Blackmagic cameras. I've worked with them since the very first 2.5k cinema and have used all of them besides the URSA because it just came out and I can't afford it. People complain because they expect perfection from a new company developing an all-new type of product. Blackmagic had some issues with firmware, their 4K camera wasn't ready for prime-time when it came out and now it works great. I've shot some stuff on the URSA Mini at a recent trade show and it's an amazing package. I did all the tests I could to insure it worked and it performed outstanding. The URSA mini has excellent low-light capability, it over-cranks as well, two things people complained about with the older cameras. The FS7 is a good camera. It's a little bit more ENG then the Blackmagic URSA Mini as well, with filter selections and easy to access programmable side switches. However, it records in 10 bit 4:2:2 MPEG 2 files which Sony calls XAVC-Intra. These are highly compressed, low bit rate files and have a lot of loss. In contrast, the URSA Mini records in 12 bit 4:4:4 Pro Res files. These files are native to OPEN GL, so unlike MPEG2 files which are played back on the CPU (requiring a powerhouse computer to work) the Pro Res files use the GPU to play back, they don't load the CPU. Plus, XAVC files need to be transcoded to edit. I know FCPX will play them native, but good luck with doing multiple layers and effects, the machine will be rendering non-stop to catch up. In my view, you should shoot the same format you deliver in. This way, there is no generation loss between shooting and distribution. Since the highest quality single-file distribution format today is Pro Res 4444, it seems logical that should be your workflow from start to finish. There is no need to shoot in raw with the URSA mini, they have a "film" mode that puts RAW dynamic range into the pro res file. Then you edit the show, export an EDL from FCPX and color it through DaVinci. It's a great workflow, I use it every day (though not with FCPX, I'm an FCP7/Avid guy) and it flat-out works. Not great if there is a client over your shoulder, but you can apply a basic color pass to the whole project in FCPX today since it finally has LUT's in it's coloring tool on the new version.

Only one real choice for that kind of money and that style of shooting… Blackmagic URSA mini. It's whole purpose is as an ENG cinema camera. So shoulder mount, run and gun, with standard audio inputs and video outputs. It's really a versatile package and when you add V mount batteries on the back, it's not that bad to carry around for the day. You can buy the EF version of the 4.6k sensor, more standard glass and add on's for around $12k. Heck for the remainder of the money, buy one or two pocket cameras as "B" camera's. So when you need something that's not so expensive and maybe in the elements, you can use that and since it's similar color science, it matches pretty good to the URSA mini. The best thing about the blackmagic cameras is that they're quicktime native pro res output files. This means you can edit immediately in FCP/AVID/Premiere without doing ANY transcoding, unlike MPEG2 or RED code cameras, which require MASSIVE pre-editing processing. If you're a shooter/editor like I am, this is really the only way to roll! As a side note, I use my pocket cameras for everything and I've not yet found a situation where they won't past broadcast standards. Maybe not the best for recording critical audio, but that's a cheap issue to fix considering broadcast is 1920x1080. All that extra "bulk" to get 4k or higher resolution, I mean… what's the point of NOBODY will ever see that extra res? I just finished a film shot with the original 2.5k cinema camera in 1920x1080 mode, on the big screen and it looked like any other big expensive camera.

There was a re-shoot after Foster had her pregnancy and I think Khondji was already booked on another shoot and couldn't come back, so Conrad Hall Jr stepped in and finished the re-shoots.

Cool stuff David, thanks for posting that. I didn't know other hollywood films had experimented with it before. On the "Seven" Criterion Laserdisc liner notes, they mention using a bleach bypass print to make the HD master. It looks entirely different then the overly clean, green/blue tinted DVD and BluRay produced by Criterion much later in time. As a side note, it's amazing to see the movie ON film. I had an opportunity to see it projected in 35mm last year and it still blows my mind away at how well it was made for a photochemical film.

Very cool Bill, thanks for sharing. Jaws is quite an amazing film and it was one of the first blockbusters and one of the last studio films distributed in mono. So the restored version has a wonderful 5.1 mix with William's magnificent score for the first time in stereo. I've heard there is a Dolby Digital 35mm restoration print working its way around Los Angeles during the 4th of July week. I'd see it in 4k, but we don't have very many 4k theaters and the ones that do exist are playing 1st run films unfortunately. I will keep an eye out thou, never know what pops up on the schedule! :) Ohh and it's one of my all-time favorite films and one of the first in my laserdisc collection when I was a kid.

Seven is one of my favorite photographed films. When it came out, I was just a teenager and was blown away with the look. Khondji pushed it even further with Panic Room, which pushed the limits of grain and black levels on 35mm to a level I had never seen before. I'm personally not a fan of underexposing like that, but it left a lasting impression on me and opened my mind to what was acceptable. It's unfortunate true pieces of cinematic art like Seven, don't get the credit they deserve in the main stream awards. Ohh and yes, I believe Seven was the first to make a hand-full of bleach bypass prints.

Yep, I just saw this thread and Robert is right. I've had lots of problems with the SR's if the loops aren't big enough. It's a common problem on that particular camera because you can't check the loop's when it's running like manual thread cameras. My guess is whoever loaded the mag's, didn't leave enough film hanging out for good loops OR didn't have enough slack on the return side of the mag.