Tyler Purcell

Yea, I'd rather own something then rent it. I rarely get much advance notice of shoots and a cinematographers "package" seems more important today then just simply owning a camera and renting the lenses. Its part of the reason I went this direction vs buying a cheap S16mm body and continuing to shoot film. For the same amount of money as a film package w/o glass, I got a digital cinema package WITH glass. Yea, the zoom lens issue is a problem, its not a HUGE problem, but it does get annoying. I usually shoot with zooms unless doing extremely short or long focal lengths. So to have nothing but primes has been interesting. However, its been good for me as a cinematographer because its forced me to think outside of the box more. Zoom lenses are pretty much the "lazy-man's" way to deal with finding a focal length. heh ;) I haven't read anything about the lomo's, I'll do some research, thanks for the info! :)

Yea, I'll have to watch out for that audio issue. I thought about buying a PL mount adaptor and finding some old super 16 zoom's, but even they can be super expensive.

Yea, the coloring was interesting... most of the "faded" look is due to the Mpeg encode, the original pro res file on my color grading monitor is stellar. But when encoded, it looses some saturation. I need to figure out if its just not translating the rec 709 properly, its probably a simple checkbox I haven't found yet. The second video I maxed out the saturation on to see what it looked like, it pops on my monitor, but again, is missing all of that pop on the youtube clip. I'm using a cheap adaptor fotodiox from Amazon, but I wouldn't recommend it. Its already coming loose on me, its just a cheap piece from china. The lenses do have a nice magenta tint to them, I have a video coming out full of lens flares which look awesome, very much as you said, like the older nikon lenses. I haven't tried a zoom yet, cinema zooms are impossible to purchase in my price bracket and buying micro 4/3rds glass is scary. I have other canon mount cameras, so it seems reasonable to spend money on that style of glass. I did choose a better location to shoot in the 2nd video with less background noise. The mic isn't bad, but its not great. It has a funny background noise that I filtered out in post as well. I purposely shot with the internal mic to show what its capable of doing, so people could hear the actual quality of the sound in real production. I now have a wireless kit and external shotgun mic, both work fantastic. My future videos are all going to be using the aftermarket mic's. I have two more videos being shot right now with the camera, one of which will contain some behind the scenes material of the rig, so people can see what I'm shooting with and the digital workflow. Every time I shoot with the camera, I get better and better results, I feel more confident with the package and I hope to get involved with a bigger production in the near future to really show its potential.

Some early work on the Pocket Cinema Camera. Sound gear just arrived today, so next video will have better sound. But this gives you an idea what the camera looks like with cheap primes, ambient lighting, no bounce cards and built-in audio. I made a few shot choices which may not be the best, but wanted to see what the camera can handle. So far I'm very impressed and just looking to share what I've been able to capture. Everything here was shot with 2 lenses; 24mm F1.5 and 85mm F1.5, though both lenses were stopped down. Edit: I have no idea why the youtube clips are so desaturated, but rest-assured, my master pro-res file is VIBRANT, looks like technicolor.

Just wrapped up my 2nd shoot with the camera today. It came out much better, still waiting for my mic's to show up, still have a few pieces of dust on the sensor or somewhere on the lens. However, all of that is fixable with a can of air for next time around. Today I had issues setting up my shoulder rig and changing lenses on the rig, as the mattbox doesn't fold out like the nice ones do. Ohh well, it was cheap! heh ;) Umm, ND filters, gradient filters and mic's are on the way. My next video will be shot this week and over the weekend, so I will get some better sound hopefully. So here is video 2 200 ASA 45 degree shutter Film dynamic range, Pro Res HQ 220 4:2:2 10 bit codec Rokinon 24mm F1.5 EOS mount prime for wider shots Rokinon 85mm F1.5 EOS mount prime for close-up shots Edited with FCP 7 in native Pro Res Colored in FCP 7 without any difficulty, no LUT necessary

I'm so excited to be shooting with this camera, I've been waiting for it since the announcement earlier this year. I recently had a very bad experience shooting a feature with Canon 5D MKII and 7D's. I was completely un-impressed by the limitations, even with the software updates, the quality of the .h264 file and its 4:2:0 8 bit compression, left me extremely frustrated. Furthermore, the "lens shifting" issue plagued us the entire shoot, if you touched the lenses, the focus would shift. Plus, of course the focus racking is not smooth either. So in my eyes, the whole thing was a flawed design and likewise, when purchasing a complete cinema package, I wanted to try something different. The bigger Blackmagic camera did interest me, but the physical size vs performance, was not what I wanted. Besides, the internal battery concept was very flawed. So when the pocket camera was announced, I put my name on the list to buy and I received it less then a month ago and started very slowly building my package. My goal was to assemble a true "cinema grade" package including completely manual cinema primes. This is a challenging proposition because not only is the camera brand new, but there is no cinema glass made for the Micro 4/3rds lens mounting system. So immediately, it was all about adapting canon EOS mount glass to the camera. Rokinon makes some very cheap prime lenses, they aren't anywhere near the quality of canon glass or for that matter, any other cinema glass. However, they are cheap and they do allow me to use all manual controls without the need of powering the lens OR fighting with lens shift. Plus, with a camera this small, hand holding is a big problem and since almost everything I shoot is hand held, I needed to buy a shoulder rig with a follow focus kit. Having lenses which are already made for that type of rig, helps tremendously. Yesterday I shot my first video with the camera. Unfortunately, I didn't bring my shoulder rig with me and my wireless mic kit hadn't showed up yet. But the video below does give you a good indication of what the camera is capable of doing without any aids outside of a tripod for the interview shots. The day was very overcast and raining most of the time in between shots and its a very dirty environment for a camera. But for me, this video shows the potential of long lenses and the Blackmagic Pocket Camera. I will be posting another video in less-than two weeks, once my wireless kit comes in and I can get some good audio. Here are the specs for the shoot: 200 ASA 172 degree shutter Film dynamic range, Pro Res HQ 220 4:2:2 10 bit codec Rokinon 24mm F1.5 EOS mount prime for wider shots Rokinon 85mm F1.5 EOS mount prime for close-up shots Edited with FCP 7 in native Pro Res Colored in FCP 7 without any difficulty, no LUT necessary The 15000mbps .h264 file upload to youtube, unfortunately damaged the true dynamic range of the piece. But its the best I can do as the original file is 4GB.

Not to get into too much detail, but the JVC is a pretty decent camera, its only serious weakness is the MPEG2 it records. I'd rate it at around 320asa, perhaps a tiny bit more, depending on which lens you use. If the gain is off, and the shutter is low, you can achieve fantastic images, even in the dark. MPEG2 is great with low motion, so slow dolly shots and not much action happening on screen and you'll capture a great image. I usually light for film with the JVC, but I don't use the stock lens. If you can't afford a lens right now, you can always buy a still lens adaptor and buy some cheap photographic primes which will help with depth of field issues the stock lens has. I personally like the JVC over the Panasonic or Sony, though the new EX Sony camcorder is finally getting better with 1080p and 1/2" chips, your still stuck with a built-in lens. I think the versatility of using multiple lenses is crucial to a cinematographer and thats what makes the JVC's stand out from the pack. Sure its 720p and sure its HDV MPEG2, but if you buy the firestore HD and use FCP to edit, man... the entire package is worth its weight in gold! Hope that helps a bit... E-mail me if you have any questions, I know a whole lot about this camera... tye1138@mac.com.

Hi Kal, Sadly, with the GY-HD200, your limited to a component based video output, which is not digital. Its an analog signal at a higher frequency range and bandwidth, that equates to HD resolution. This is the biggest fault with the JVC HDV format, its VERY consumer based. Tape or Firestore HD are the highest ENG (portable) quality you can get off that camera. Now if you were to capture on location using a component cable and a IOHD sure, you can achieve less compression and higher color space (4:2:2 instead of HDV's 4:2:0) using Apple's Pro 4:2:2 codec in 720p mode. I've done extensive testing with the JVC HDV format, I know it better then some of there engineer's. Its not a great format, especially for high motion. The 19Mbps MPEG2 thats recorded on tape and through the firewire port, is sub-standard in today's flourishing HD world. Mini-DV can easily store 25Mbps, but JVC's idea is simple; they wanted a camera that produced the same quality as broadcast HD which as a limit of 19Mbps. Otherwise, the camera's potential is only limited by the 1/3" pickup device, which looks quite good for a sub $20,000 camera. So in my opinion, don't worry about using the AJA IOHD and capturing it separately, the only benefit you'd get is if you used it on the set to capture picture directly to a computer.

David and Michael, you guys are great fun... total film geeks like myself, I hope when I'm older I'll be doing the same thing you are doing now, spending free time helping others discover the magic of filmmaking. I appreciate the fact industry professionals like most of you, hang out on this forum and keep it lively. :) There is something magical about film, before you've shot it. Just like there is something magical about a TV studio before you've been working in one for years. I've given huge talks about shooting in Digital video vs film in the past. I've written papers on the subject and even done tests when the first batch of medium grade HD cameras came out. I talk with at least 3 people a week about shooting HD on a budget, none of which take film into consideration. It hurts me to realize that in 20 years from now, the great filmmakers of our time will be retired and the new filmmakers, who take there place, will have grown up with HD and digital capturing mediums. In my opinion, film will disappear, not because of the demand changing, but because of new filmmakers themselves, never having touched or wanted it. This relates directly to Javier and its the reason I made that huge post on how to make money. I think its a great idea to shoot film while you still can. Just the thought of shooting on film, keeps the format alive. Everybody should shoot film, especially 16mm... if there is a will, there is a way! :D

Javier, I think you do too! lol :) Thanks for understanding Martin, good luck with your projects!!!

I've had very nice, personal talks with Javier about his film. He is a great guy, truly has a vision and wants to shoot film for obvious reasons. He isn't a cinematographer, so maybe the question shouldn't have been asked on a cinematography forum. He has clearly never shot a piece of film before and some of you thought outside of the box and suggested he not take on such a huge feature film project as his first piece on film. I suggested he come up with some money so he can shoot it on film and the ONLY way to come up with money is to have an excellent screenplay. Anyhow, sorry to upset people, it wasn't my intention. I don't understand how you can just answer the question and not think outside of the box and give some tips/insight about other options. Bashing cinematography wasn't my intention, helping a confused individual who needs guidance was my goal and nothing else. I thought this forum would be more open minded...

My opinion is of the others above... I too have shot old stock, most of which was not kept very climate controlled. I bought 50 rolls of 16mm 400ft (don't remember number) Kodak Plus-x and Tri-x B&W stock at a yard sale for $5 dollars when I was a kid. I used it 10 years later to make 3 short films... the oldest stock (from the 70's) was gonzo, but I tested it first... The rest of the stock was from the 80's, muddy results, but hey, its practically free stock and its projectable! :rolleyes: Good luck with your project, I'd not worry about the 2 year old stock...

I've been working with Javier a bit in person and I'm new to the forum, so howdy! I've been a cinematographer for a long time, started as a kid with super 8 and moved into commercial 35mm work in my early 20's. Shot my first HD feature at 25 and never got another "feature" gig due to scoring a decent job in Broadcast Engineering and haven't looked back. I'm pretty deep in the industry, touching shoulders with guys who were on the test team for the RED camera, personally working with engineers on the JVC GY HD100u and of course constantly shooting projects. I realized a long time ago, it doesn't matter what you shoot on, what makes a difference your story and how your telling it. Due to that, I've left the cinematography group and have become a jack of all trades; shooter, editor, director... though I'm probably one of the few people who is super proficient at all 3 things. My advice to Javier has been to shoot in Digital. We are talking about telling a story and no matter how you tell it, HD, Film or a cell phone camera, its still a story acted out. Spending money on equipment and film stock is NOT part of the equation, especially if you don't know how to use said equipment. It took me many years of study on my own, to understand film and its organic properties. Now I can walk into a lit room and tell you what stock would work with what lens and what stop. As a one man show, you've gotta know those things, so you know what you got in the can is good. Javier can go buy a camera, sound recorder and mic's, he can pick up a set of primes, pay for film stock and processing, but what does he get? A mess of film and audio that is useless to him because he can't edit it without spending more money on transferring and syncing. Then, only then can he even see what's shot and its not even what you shot because the transfer could suck and of course the film looks better then the NTSC tape your editing. On all the films I've shot, every one gets the best roll printed, mainly for having something to project. I did a 1 light work print on 1 roll of film to compare it to the 1080p 4:2:2 D5 HD master which was color corrected. I was shocked that the HD master looked BETTER then my 1 light work print. But that single reel of film cost the producers over $800 to color correct and another $130 for a tape. Do the math when scanning 60 + rolls of film at 2k HD resolution... My answer to the question of shooting a movie is similar to what some of you have said; If the script is good, get funding! If the script can't get you funding, re-write it or write something that CAN get you funding. The golden rule is to not spend your own money and to never buy equipment because equipment doesn't equal a great movie. Sure cheap HD equipment is everywhere but, have you seen that hot new feature shot on the GYHD110 yet? Or how bout that other one shot on the HDX200? Nop, I've sadly not seen either of them. For some reason I've also missed all the recent features shot on 16mm too! You need to have a screenplay which is so tantalizing, no executive producer can put it down. If you can't pass that hurtle, go get a camcorder and make a zero budge movie. If its awesome, you can get the funding to re-make it in the future. Having a great package lined up from crew, to cast and perfectly done budget is the second step. Find somebody or many people, willing to invest a small sum of change in your movie, under 100k is usually possible, and go to work. There are a lot of DP's around with full Arri SR packages and connections to help get your cost down. Your money should be placed in the screenplay, actors and fantastic DP (what's on screen). If its a great story, well acted and looks like a million bux, you'll probably get a chance to make another. Hiring a DP gets your mind off the "film" aspect and onto the Directing/Editing aspect, which is where it needs to be. The biggest problem young filmmakers run into is the "I must do it all" mentality and it's also the best way to end up like me; a jack of all trades NOT making movies! Don't forget about your goals, do you wanna be an artist or a filmmaker? An Artist usually makes uninteresting movies, that look pretty. Filmmakers are all about the story and screw the art, what's entertaining is what goes! Stanley Kubrick vs Alfred Hitchcock. Kubrick was a TRUE artist and Hitchcock was a REAL story teller!