Tyler Purcell

WOW just found this thread using google of all things! very interesting stuff! I too am obsessed with making a few 65mm film's and have done a lot of soul searching and research as of late. I can't answer you B&W question unfortunately, but I can tell you what I'm planning on doing… maybe some if it could help your cause, never know? I personally feel large-format is the answer to film staying alive. Arri's new system 65 Alexa will for sure push some films into shooting digitally until they realize there isn't a standard projection system with high enough quality. Doesn't matter how good the source is, if you're presentation is 2k. I've been writing a great little small-town fantasy film which will be all art direction and set design. Something that harken's back to the day's of large format; longer takes, every shot is on a dolly or jib with a slow move and extremely shallow depth of field throughout the piece. Also, because there are lots of dark interiors, I'm scared to loose image detail through grain using higher ASA stocks. I'm so sick and tired of filmmakers using 500 ASA stock and using a few 200 watt practicals to light. The graininess pulls ME right out of the film and I start focusing on the grain and why they made that decision. The last two films that were blown up to 70mm (Inherent Vice and Interstellar) the dark 35mm stuff looked like crap, very disconcerting. For me, it's a no-brainer to step it up a notch and make a real masterpiece, originating on a 65mm negative. The film has a lot of tricky things, including a whole bunch of underwater cinematography (maybe 12 min worth) and a 3 minute 2D hand-drawn animation section, which we'll use an multi-plane animation stand to capture. This animation scene AND the underwater stuff will be shot using a Fries 8 perf 65mm vertical camera. Getting that large negative, gives something for IMAX involvement. Shooting those scenes in IMAX with IMAX 15 perf cameras, is very technically challenging, not just because the cameras are huge, but also because of the expense. My goal of using a Fries 8 perf for some select MOS scenes, works great because it give a large enough negative and rental costs are peanuts compared to IMAX. I've devised a great system of recording takes digitally before running the camera and because the takes will be long, using art directing and camera moves to keep the audience entertained, negates the need for excess coverage. My goal is a 5:1 shooting ratio for MOS shots and 8:1 shooting ratio on dialog shots. I'm consciously separating both because Panavisions (loud) reflex 65mm MOS camera is much smaller and easier to deal with then their sound camera. So for the practical locations I plan on using, it's going to be much easier to fit in tight spots. I'm doing a photochemical finish for sure, color and print with zero digital work. There are a few special effects in the film, but nothing that can't be achieved with an optical printer. Even the titles will be photochemical, something that's going to be tough, but doable. The goal of course will be to finish the film on 5/70 and run a 70mm and 35mm print up front for the festival circuit both in the US and Europe. Due to the cast and interesting story, the film should be an easy sell in Europe, which is kind of my market anyway. I'm planning on building-in to my distribution deal a one month hiatus before wide-release which will screen the film in 70mm only AND sign on a few IMAX theaters in the process to show it in 15/70. This way the hype is built slowly, based on "quality" and an "experience" rather then just another film to watch at your local multiplex. US distribution maybe "self' distribution and may take time before it goes wide, depending on receipts from Europe. However, if theaters can make money off the few prints that will be struck and released, then there is no reason they can't continue to make money. The buzz will keep people in the seats for sure. Anyway… that's kind of my idea. Because most of the people I work with are european, I maybe able to come up with the money from Europe and push hard to make the film for the European market, though in English. There is a huge market for that right now surprisingly enough, and it's something I'm absolutely going after. 12M isn't a huge risk and the rewards would be great IF the film is received well by the audience, which if course is any filmmakers real goal. :sigh:, time to get back to work on the script! LOL :)

Very interesting idea… I guess that's how he got the blur effect so well. Cool to know! :)

They probably scan from both top and bottom of the imager at the same time and join in the middle. It's a clever technique I've seen a few companies use including Sony. So they can't "claim" to be a global shutter, but having worked with the Alexa, it's "rolling shutter" is almost invisible, where the C500's is clear as day.

Well, both cameras have the same unbelievable flaws for the price range. Both cameras have a rolling shutter. Both cameras uses scalers to down-sample the imager. Both cameras use 8 bit 4:2:0 MPEG based internal recording. Both cameras require thousands of dollars of external gear to capture anything else but 8 bit 4:2:0 Both cameras spit out RGB down the double stream 3G HDSDI output, not RAW off-sensor. FS700 uses an "E" lens mount, which is completely worthless. You're always adapting and compensating to use any real glass on it. FS700 menu's and user interface is absolute garbage. Typical Sony to hide many important options and require camera pre-programming to work with them. The C500, like it's little brother the C300 is more of a cinema camera then the FS700. It has a more intuitive "cinema" mentality with the menu's and such. However, the workflow for capturing 4k 444 isn't cost effective. Canon has literally priced the C500 too high. If it were $6k then things would be different, but the kind of money Canon is asking, is absolutely insane and absurd! The C500 does have better low-light then the FS700 which can get grainy. I've worked with both camera's during demo's and noticed this when trying to get an image out of nothing. However, the FS700 is fully capable of being hand-held right out of the box, where the C500's shape is really worthless. You're stuck to buying shoulder rigs in order to shoot with it, which sucks. Finally, both camera's offer slow-mo. However, neither camera records slow-mo in 4k and neither camera records slow-mo externally in anything more then 2k and have issues recording on external devices. The Codex is supposedly compatible, but there have been a lot of issues with the FS700, so Sony came out with a new model FS700R which fixes them. Of course, they charge more money for the R, typical Sony style. All in all, both cameras will cost you between $25k and $40k to get a decent signal out of them. In contrast… The Blackmagic 4k Cinema camera has none of these issues. - Global Shutter - 4k Raw or 4k/2k Pro Res 4444 12 bit capture built-in (no need for any external recorder, drag and drop into any editor, no transcode needed) - Super 35mm sensor with 12 stops of latitude - PL or EOS mount - Small chassis/body, easy to hand-hold and shoot quickly Best part is, it's just a camera. It's not trying to be the end-all, be-all for everyone. It's simply a camera body and it does the job. Buy a rail system and a matte box for filtration and the thing is absolutely unbeatable at $2,999 USD retail. Sure the Blackmagic option has a few hiccups, one of which is the battery life and another is the lack of slow-mo. But hey, with the money you save on buying one, you can rent a slow-mo camera! Sorry for the rant… but it's annoying to think Sony and Canon still haven't figured out that people don't want 8 bit 4:2:0 color space, with a rolling shutter for MORE THAN $10k! Who are they kidding!!! Very frustrating! The worst part is, the Sony F5 and F55 are wonderful cameras in contrast. Why can't Sony take that technology and make it cheaper, it's beyond belief.

Absolutely! But there are many positive things about technology restrictions. Filmmakers who strive to be artists, pretty much ignore technology... it's just a tool to achieve their goals. The problem lies with people who wouldn't be able to make art without technology.

The point is, in this "trial and error" world with multiple undo layers, it's easy for anyone to learn how to edit, get a job editing and still not really be a good editor. With film, if you're not a good editor, you don't have a job., Couldn't agree with you more. The problem comes down to holding potential buyers and audiences attention. They expect fast pacing, quick cuts and lots of camera moves, so indie filmmakers strive to deliver those things first. Don't let the audience rest for a moment and maybe they'll forget about the poor acting, non-existant production design and horrible lighting. Also, because there is no need to wait for film to be processed, you can shoot WAY quicker then you can on film. That speed of shooting, puts camera's on people's shoulders or steadicam, rather then on a dolly. Slow tracking shot's are almost a thing of the past.

David is right, it's absolutely the higher shutter angle. However, after looking through a 1080p copy I have, it appears the signs maybe added. So the effect artist probably tried to mimic the higher shutter angle and camera shake. Just a guess… but if you watch carefully, there is absolutely something else wrong besides the shutter angle.

When you shoot digitally, most of the time students never learn about exposure, shutter angle, ISO/ASA and the critical things which make cameras work. Most schools use HD camcorders which you can set to "auto" and capture an image, or they learn about gain and shutter speed, two things which don't translate well to the world of cinema. Plus the ease of post production with those cameras, isn't realistic. I learned on film as a child because back then, super 8 is all we had. When the infrastructure existed, it didn't take long for film to come back from the lab. It wasn't expensive… a 1.5 min @ 24fps color Kodachrome 50 ASA Day stock was $10 dollars, plus an additional $5 for processing. Sure, my camera was automatic at the time, but as I got older, I purchased fully manual camera's to learn the trade properly. I moved to 16mm in college and when I graduated, started shooting 35mm. The "expense" was never a consideration, it honestly wasn't that expensive. The school's had beat up news camera's from the 80's, which were donated. Kodak gives students discounts on stock, so all of us would buy a box of 4 X 400ft can's. The local lab's were cheap enough and they'd make one light dailies for peanuts. The key with learning on film is that you don't want to make any mistakes since you can't see the final output. In this way, you pay more attention to the technical things in order to get it right. You aren't just running the camera to 'capture' something, you are only running the camera to get that 'take' and outside of that, the camera never runs. It's about learning how to make movies the proper way, without the freedom of shooting every take, where every foot costs you money. Not only do you become a better cinematographer, but you also become a better director if it's your project. The best thing about working with film is being able to physical touch the image. The organic nature of film editing is something everyone should be taught because it forces you to think before making a cut, before making a splice. Non-linear editing is a joke, you don't really need any talent because when you make a mistake, just hit the undo button. On film, you can't afford to make mistakes since you're making physical cuts, so you do it right the first time and it requires a thinking editor, not someone who knows how to drag and drop. I don't mind shooting digital cinema because I've already shot and edited on film for years. I've worked at lab's, I've worked with telecine machines, I've done film restoration as well. However, most of my clients have no interest in film, they want something that people can see on the internet. It's a disposable world we live in. You work hard to produce a product, it's put online, people watch it and then it disappears from consciousness. Heck, even the digital features I've worked on… people make them quick and move onto the next one. Very few people spend the time or the money necessary to make a real piece of art and we no longer have a physical connection to what we make. That separation in my view is part of what's destroying cinema.

Very exciting! Didn't know you had the equipment to cut film. So you're problem really lies with the photochemical color correction more then anything else. Have you talked with Cinelab? I know they have the equipment, if you're willing to make the trek. Once colored photochemically, you can simply scan the internegative and do some touch-up work in DaVinci.

I assume this is a 16mm film and your master will be a 2k DCP right? Honestly, I wouldn't cut the negative. I'd simply telecine everything, cut digitally, then go back and scan selects in 2k. Take those 2k Raw scan's and conform them with DaVinci, which you can do at home since DaVinci is free today. Then all you need to do is find someone with a DI suite locally who can take your media and do color. Export as DPX and drop it off to get a scan back to film if you want a film-out. This way if you run into money, you can get a nice 35mm scan back to film! :) From my experience, the photochemical timing strip's only work with film printers unfortunately. I've done a lot of restoration and the films I've restored had those strips and everyone at the labs ignored them.

Not really… the C100 looks like an HD video camera. The Blackmagic 4k camera, looks more like an Alexa, but still nothing like film. Sure, in DaVinci you can add film LUT's, which will enhance the image greatly. But things like the rolling shutter and white clipping issues on the C100, will stand out like sore thumbs. Plus, the C100 HDMI output starts as interlaced and the de-interlacing process, doesn't guarantee you perfect progressive images. This means, reflections that clip, can have black lines in the clipping. So even with interiors, you have to be very careful to not let any clipping into your shot. I'm not saying the Blackmagic 4k cinema camera isn't faultless because it has lots of small issues. The two biggest ones are the battery and audio. If you're shooting a film, you'll have external audio anyway. The battery issue isn't too bad because there are many solutions on the market. If you want a "cinematic look" you start with a cinema camera like the Blackmagic, Red or Alexa.

The oscar's haven't really picked the best cinematography in a long, long, long time. Roger Deakins has yet to win an Oscar. Period. So Birdman winning? Lubezki did a great job, but no way was Birdman better then Unbroken or The Grand Budapest.

The moment you pass the signal down an HDMI cable to an external recorder, you're stuck with that color space forever. Plus, the C100 HDMI port spits out 60i and the Ninja recognizes the frame rate at 24. However, it doesn't do the pulldown, so your captured files need the pull-down interlaced flags removed and then you can work with them. Plus the Ninja2 isn't quite 10 bit. The tests I've seen say it's 512 samples, not 1024 like 10 bit. So it's an in-between, like 9 bit or something like that. Finally… the Blackmagic 4k Cinema camera records in 12 bit 4:4:4 color space with 12 stops of latitude and a global shutter. You can't beat the price vs performance. Plus, the Pro Res 4444 files are native to Avid, Premiere and Final Cut Pro. So you don't even need to transcode or mess with them in post production. Simply back everything up and edit with you original camera masters! Why not! :)

Supposedly, they're extending the lens selection soon and adding a "cinema" zoom this year. We may see some great stuff at NAB this year. I would LOVE a little cinema zoom, ya know 25 - 70? Something not so crazy, just enough to give some movement to the shot. I'll get in touch via PM when I have some time and my other buddies are around. You'd like them as some of them are industry professionals who have LOTS of fun toys! :)

Ohh BTW, we should get together sometime and share notes. I have a few other cinematography friends who are starting to dig the pocket as well. :)

I guess 2.2 isn't bad, but even the Rokinon's I have are 1.5 and they're cheap glass. I used Zeiss Super Speed's on most of my films, it's what the rental houses have. I'm one of those guys who shoots with the lens all the way open to try to achieve shallow depth of field on these small format cameras. With 35mm, it's a different world, but with S16, it's one of those things I always strive to do in order to make the film look more "filmic".

Just an FYI, I looked into the Veydra's and they aren't very fast, F2.2. If they were cheap, it would be a different story, but they're not even cheap! I too will be joining the PL bandwagon soon, once I have something bigger to shoot.

We use to run one 1/4" reel to reel tape per camera roll. So each 1/4" reel had a camera roll number. When the film was processed, we'd throw white leader on the daily rolls and physically write the camera reel number on the outside for easy identification with a black magic marker. We'd then transfer the audio from 1/4" onto film mag stock and do the same procedure, throw white leader on it and label. I always sync and edited on a bench editor. I hated moviola's, they weren't very smooth to operate and made a bunch of noise and when your trying to determine if you like a take or not, its important to hear the audio. So the steenbeck was where I always did my work. Since the mag reel and camera reel were the same data as the roll of film, it was very easy to sync the two. On 16mm, we used grease pencils, on 35mm we used punches. The audio guy would always give us a tone at the head and tail of each take. This made it very easy to fast forward until you heard the tone and listen for the slate. You'd then lock the two in sync, make a mark, forward to the next take and simply cut the audio portion. On 16mm, we always ran one sided splices since we knew the reels were gong to be broken down anyway. On 35mm it's harder, we found it would jam in the rollers sometimes, so we tended to do double sided tape. Once the reels were in sync, we'd watch them and take notes. We rarely used keycode numbers, we mostly used slate numbers and if they didn't work, we'd use a white piece of splice tape and make a note on it. We'd pull out the best takes only, label them with paper tape using scene number, shot, take and most importantly camera reel. We also marked on each camera reel log, which piece was cut out, so we knew where it came from on paper. All the short clips were hung on a trim bin, all the longer cuts were wound onto independent cores, especially with 35mm. We did a paper cut of the film based on the script and organized those shots in the trim bin. Then we assembled those shots in order, most of which were master wide's or two shot's. Even though we hung the close up's, they usually hung until we were done with that scene and added them later once the flow was good. I always started at the head of the show and worked scene by scene on their own cores. Once the flow was good, we'd add in the pre-cut close up's and do some frame tweaking to get little things right. With film editing, you need to visualize everything your about to do, before you do it. We then had a bunch of cores with individual scenes, mostly all with a piece of paper tape holding them together with a number on them, so we knew where they sat within the script. Once all the scenes were cut, we'd do what's considered a "master assembly" of the show. When working on TV, it was broken down into acts. So sometimes 12 min, sometimes 8 minutes, depends on the show and timed length between commercials. On features, it was always broken down into 20 minute reels. Once master assembly is done, we'd project it for the producers. We had one of those steenbeck projectors, it was awesome and allowed more then a few people to watch the film before signing off. This process was the most tricky because sometimes we'd have to go back to the dailies and grab some missing material. Some of our dailies were very rough, lots of splices on top of splices due to fine tuning. Once approved, the negative was sent to the negative cutter. Shots that required transitions were sent to the lab to do the photochemical work. The final negative was conformed and sent to the lab for color correction. Audio was also sent to the lab on 6 track magnetic stock and then the optical audio print was made. When done, we'd get a print with mated audio and ready for projection.

Yep, it would be a simple update of the imager and processor. They could use the A9 chip, which is what the new GoPro uses and that will give it enough processing power to potentially run at 2k AND reduce the rolling shutter effect. Adding Pro Res 4444 is no big deal, it's down to the card speeds at that point. I really hope we see something at NAB.

Good thoughts Phil. One point about 2.5" 2TB drives… they're MUCH more reliable then 3.5" drives. For sure not "archival" but LTO isn't really archival either since the tapes are only guaranteed for 25 years. Unfortunately, the only true archival format is film.

I was gonna say it looked like my camera! LOL :) Nice job, great little story and it looked great.

Yea it does have a very nice look! Can't find the film on IMDB though.

I've built many post facilities around the US and we've always used LTO libraries for backing up online storage. When you have over 25TB of spinning disks (multiple raid array's) LTO is a great way to keep that data secure. On the install's I've done, we've averaged around 90Mbps per second on 4gb fiber LTO5 drives, with uncompressed media. From my personal experience, being an editor for two decades… most clients want the camera originals back when your finished editing. Back in the day, we'd just hand them a box of tapes or film. Today, we hand them hard drives, lots and lots of hard drives. LTO isn't a "hand off" medium unfortunately. Most clients will want a plug and play solution which allows them to read your drives without special hardware. This is why I personally do everything on spinning disks. It's a real pain in the ass, but if you do the leg work up front, it actually works well. Today the 2.5" 2TB drives are around $85. If you buy in bulk, you can get the price down a bit. It's much easier to organize in the finder without needing a backup utility as well. This insures your backup disks are perfect because you can read the media before sending them off. It's hard to dump all the media from an LTO onto a disk, read it and verify it all works before sending it off. You honestly don't know if everything on the LTO is working until you do that. So anyway, that's why I made the suggestion. It would be awesome to deliver LTO 6 to all clients, when that day happens, I will be in heaven. :) This is a great subject and it's a topic of heated debate amongst editors around the globe. Most of the television guys have excuses for using proxy files, that boils down to storage and multicam. When you have 12 different camera angles to choose from, that's a lot of media sitting on drives. Plus, once you get past 4 cameras, the system will grind to a halt if you aren't using a proxy resolution/bit rate. For those people, proxy based editing is a necessity and those producers/editors are use to working that way. Plus, most of the jobs I've had go to broadcast and they all capped out at DNX115 because that's been determined as the lowest acceptable resolution for broadcast. For anything outside of television or multicam, editing in a resolution acceptable for finishing is critical. The biggest reason why comes down to finishing expenses. You can very easily finish a film at home with DaVinci and Pro Tools and have something tangible in your hand at 1920x1080 so you can show people your film. You wouldn't want to skimp and say "it's a low res proxy version" that doesn't make any sense. You want something you'll be proud of, something you can show people knowing it's what your film looks like. I've done lots of experimenting with Pro Res 220 and 147 and have found them to look nearly identical. For smaller shows for DVD/BluRay and web distribution, I shoot and edit everything in Pro Res 147. For middle budget shows which may see theatrical distribution, I either shoot in 220 or Raw, depending on budget since I can't edit in raw. I've cut features with Pro Res 220 and had no problem with anything. The edit system worked just like it would with proxy, only I knew that what I saw was exactly how the film will look. So yea, I get the proxy concept, but if you aren't running crazy multi-cam and if you're smart with your dailies, it's not a problem to edit in any codec you want.

Ohh and yes DaVinci has stock emulators. :)