Christopher Purdy

Hi David, Thank you so much for the thorough explanation. I'm curious, how does the Non-DI process differ when the negative was shot 2-perf, 3-perf, Super35, 4-perf anamorphic, or Vistavision? Specifically in terms of making the print dailies and IP, is there always going to be an optical step involved if the negative is not standard 4-perf 35mm? I guess the same question can be applied to a film like Dunkirk which was finished photochemically from 5-perf 65mm, 15-perf IMAX, and filmout negatives from VFX, for 35mm, 70mm, and IMAX release prints as well as DCP. It seems like that would be unbelievably complicated with all of the various answer prints, IPs, INs, etc.

Perhaps Roger is too much of a gentleman (and a professional) to say specifically which film problems he ran into and where, as he knows that these issues are, more than anything, a result of diminishing infrastructure and a changing industry paradigm, and that with so few individuals left working in these positions, doing so would make it easy to single them out and potentially get them terminated. Just a theory.

Thank you David and Satsuki, I think that clears up that it's definitely not normal for the camera, and is an issue with this particular unit's optical block. I'll talk to the tech about it and see if I can figure out what's going on.

Here's a link to a gallery of some stills from my tests. You can click and then click again to see the full res. http://postimg.org/gallery/11h14e8i8/ They are labeled as Alexa and F65, rated at 400, 800, 1600ASA respectively, at normal exposure for those EIs. No other over or under exposure beyond rating the sensors differently. I can upload some of the overexposed stills as well, but even in these you can see a glaring difference (no pun intended) especially in the 1600ASA frame where the slate catches a glint of the light source. Again, since we could see this on the monitor during testing, lenses were swapped, and the internal clear filter was removed to try and get rid of the blooming, but neither of those things helped mitigate it. The lamp was not panned directly at either camera, but at the ground in between both, and these tests were shot side-by-side simultaneously. These are in Log C and SLog3, but the bloom is even more apparent in 709.

Has anyone else noticed an unusual blooming in highlights and hotspots on the F65? In general, I think the F65 is an incredible and sorely underused camera. I've just shot some over/under tests against an Alexa, and it was remarkable to me how well it holds its own. The Alexa might be giving me an extra stop in the highlights, but the resolution on the F65 is far more detailed than anything I've seen from a 4K bayer camera, and unlike its younger brother, the F5/55, that awful chroma noise is virtually nonexistant. But I just can't seem to figure out what's causing this glowing effect. Swapping the lenses and clearing the internal filters didn't change anything, so it's either something in the optical sensor stack or crosstalk from clipped photosites. I'm wondering if it's specific to the unit I was testing, or if it's something other people have noticed as well...

Can anyone explain the difference between these three types of Tiffen diffusion filters? Warm Black Diffusion FX Warm Soft FX Gold Diffusion FX I'm a really big fan of the Black Diffusion FX, I've used them before to add a subtle filmlike bloom to highlights, but I'd like to try something that adds a little warmth to the image as well. Of all the aesthetic qualities of film emulsion, the hardest one to recreate digitally is the subtle warm glow in the highlights. I think it's more common when using an 85 filter or windows gelled 85, but I notice it a lot when a practical is in the shot, or the sun is creating a specular pool off of something. It's one of the telltale signs that something was actually shot on film rather than digital with a film emulation lut. I expect it has something to do with the red layer being softer and really bright spots reflecting off of the rem-jet backing, but due to the nature of digital sensors, this phenomenon is nearly impossible to reproduce. Somehow, Arri got really close with the Alexa sensor, and I'm convinced that this is a subconscious reason why so many people prefer the look of that camera. Sony, not so much. I'm kind of obsessed with this, and I've narrowed my search down to these three filter types, or just shooting outside with an 85. I'm going to try and shoot tests, but I was wondering if anyone has experience with any of these.

I looked into renting the 1.33x V-Lite Hawks for a 3-perf S35 production I shot last November so I could get 2.40 without having to do an extraction, but still save on stock. I found it to be not worth the hassle or expense. With the ubiquity of similarly sized digital sensors and the popularity of anamorphic these days, you'd think they'd be readily available in LA, but that's not the case. So I contacted Vantage in Weiden, and they were willing to rent them to me, but they would've had to be shipped from Germany, with a customs broker at LAX, all totaling over $2000 just for shipping, not including rental cost. Locally, I was only able to locate the S16 lenses. As far as I know, the image circle on that set will not cover a S35 sensor or gate. It's two different sets of lenses. If you look at Keslow's catalog, they only carry the focal range from 14mm to 35mm, which makes sense for S16 but not for S35. From what I read in F&D Times, the V-Lite spherical components, and therefore focal lengths, are the same across the S35s but the two different anamorphots are changeable, or something along those lines. It's a bummer, because I think these lenses are extraordinarily useful and they'd be flying off rental shelves if they were more available. I was again hoping to use them on an Alexa Open Gate to get a perfect 2.0:1, providing they covered the sensor. So many possibilities, and a really unique look.

Great work! I really don't think you have anything to worry about in the long run. You have the eye and talent for it, that much is very apparent. Your career will come to you as long as you keep at it. Obviously, I'm not one to be doling out advice seeing as how I'm in a similar boat as you, but I think the best thing to do at this point would be, seeing as you're in Austin, to find local directors doing independent shorts or features who are in need of a DoP, and offer your services. It's also a good idea to obtain your own camera system and light/lens inventory if you can afford it, or to find a job at an equipment rental house and learn everything you can. Other than that, you could use entertainmentcareers.net or something similar to find a position as a 2nd AC or Camera Trainee/PA/Loader, and work your way up the 'ladder.' After all, to get to the position of Director of Photography, arguably the most highly respected in the entire film industry, in charge of both camera and lighting crews, you're going to eventually need to have a complete encyclopedic knowledge and mastery of all the positions that you would ultimately preside over. For that reason, I think it makes the most sense to earn one's stripes working as an underling on set. The only way forward is more experience and hard work. Good luck!