Shawn Sagady

Love that look, especially the really organic motion blur of her walking. Digital has never quite gotten the motion blur right.

I have the C7 screw on one and its been totally fine on my Zeiss 10-100 MKII. Its certainly possible it might come loose at some point, but easy to re-tighten and make sure its seated. Just clean the hell out of your mount to make sure there is no dust or funky particles that might make the mount uneven. The mechanical locking one actually makes me a little nervous.

The CMOS scans the image line by line top to bottom, looks like you are seeing an unfinished frame in the buffer or something. This is why a lot of modern prosumer cameras have rolling shutter based on the speed the sensor is able to scan the lines, it becomes uneven as it goes down while the camera is moving.

So prepping my next project will be my first film experience. What is the standard method for moving footage from location to lab, first class shipping? I'm mildly terrified to let the cans leave my possession considering there is no backup like I would have with digital. And I am of course very nervous about sending it through the X-Ray even though it supposedly is fine, id hate for the exposure to be mucked up at all. I know that very often with all my digital gear the TSA will swab the gear to check for chemical traces of explosives etc, like hard drives and cameras etc because there are so many cables and electronics. I assume if they dont need to break open the hard drive they wouldnt need to open the film can.

Actually curious about this as well as Ill need a 1st AC and Potentially Camera OP for an indie short on 16mm in Chicago in the winter.

Thanks Stuart, appreciate the time to write it up.

Stuart if I may ask, since this is just a log to 709 what techniques did you use to get the creamy warmth in the top image and the cool bluegreen in the bottom one. is that just the color balance and saturation levels or did you do any basic tinting in post?

I just cant get over how sharp it all is, I mean thats amazing we can capture such detail, but did anyone think to ask if we should. I know you can soften it up in post or use filters to take the edge off but seeing pores on peoples face without being a closeup is kinda disturbing my mind for some reason.

I can not speak to standards in the motion picture world, but in the theater world we often send techs in during the prep of the gear in the shops to ensure the package is exactly what we need and they know how it is all put together and works. I wouldn't imagine there would be a huge issue with your visiting the shop for the upcoming gig and getting familiar, unless its an insurance problem, or this is some kinda tabu thing in film.

Tyler we don't see eye to eye on everything and that's totally cool. The thing I love about the BMPCC is that it can be a tiny self contained camera or it can be a full kitted out narrative camera. Could I have bought a bigger camera for the price of the BMPCC + Rig? Perhaps, but I would have been hard pressed to purchase a camera with 12-bit RAW capability and the color science of the BMPCC AND all the accessories for it for the same price. Also for my purposes I wanted something much easier to travel and I have it here. I can fit my entire kit into my camera backpack which fits nicely in overhead. The other thing is almost all my equipment will be just as effective on a different camera as it is on this one, the ONLY thing that is truly camera specific is the cage which cost barely anything. And if I am going to shoot with something much bigger like an Alexa or Panavision camera, then I am going to have the money/budget to get the bigger better accessories. Anyways to each their own, you only want your camera for small hand held or micro rigs, thats totally cool, but dont tell me that I made a mistake because I use mine in more ways than you do.

Interestingly coming from a completely opposite world my appreciation for film has been growing and growing even though if you had asked me a year ago I would have told there is no way in hell I would ever even attempt shooting on film because digital was easier and cheaper. I am now in development for my first short shot entirely on film and have spent the better part of the last 6 months really really trying to study and understand and appreciate the sometimes subtle differences between the two. But honestly I think it was Tyler on these forums that really swayed me just with the argument of having your film on an analog format that I can keep on a shelf for a long time, and even if the world drastically changed and computers and the internet were to vanish, I would still have my film and be able to share the story. As well having done some narrative shooting, I despise the pace of digital, and I think it is really a detriment to creative story telling. Everyone expects to do a million takes to try things out, and that might eventually get you something good, but I think it also waters it down. Shooting film forces an immediacy and intimacy that I can only equate with performing for a live audience. You have to give it your all and really commit to decisions and tell your story with conviction. Now that may sound overly romantic and even silly to some people, and I am sure I will continue to shoot on digital for projects that simply can not afford film, or where film would be impractical but I am falling for film a little more every day. Even going back to study some of my favorite movies that were made with film but I have not seen in ages, and it gives me new appreciation. Thanks for the original Post OP and while I come from a totally different generation, and have worked my way to this idealism from the opposite directions I completely agree with your sentiments about film and analog in general.

I could be totally crazy but I seem to remember a lot of the lower end canons have a 29 minute limit on records due to some patent nonsense with 24p and different licensing if they hit 30 minutes? That could be COMPLETELY bogus but that's what I remember when researching my first canon DSLR/Film camera (60D)

I think the exclusion of those two characters from Watchmen would have been nice to have in the film, add some weight to the loss of NY and the characters. The Indiana Jones one I can live without but would like to see, Prometheus, I love to hate that movie. I am a huge fan of anything Aliens but that movie made my head hurt so badly.

Were not going to see 60p on the pockets due to the cooling issues with running the processors at higher rates to deal with the increase in data. The reason they were able to expand to 60p on the Micro is the new body design which allowed for much improved cooling and airflow, and hence running the processors hotter and allowing the higher data rates needed for 60p. I also have to agree that 9/10 times I use the pocket, it is in a rig with an external monitor (unless the stupid micro hdmi port broke again) so I find the existence of the rear screen on the pocket somewhat redundant. I typically have mine covered with a battery or other gak on the rig to keep things compact. For my taste I would be happier with the Micro than the Pocket for a couple improved features, but the same sensor and a form factor that suits my shooting style much better.

David all your responses in here would stand alone as an amazing article for people learning, your experience and sharing are so easy to understand and you provide very useful analogies. Would love to just compile all your posts into a tutorial.

This conversation reminded me a bit of this article by Steve Yedlin http://www.yedlin.net/OnColorScience/

I think the generally accepted lenses are Full Frame: 50mm, Super 35: 35mm, Super 16: 18mm or so.

If there is every ANY doubt about the performance and amazing color science of the BMPCC (my favorite digital camera that I use on everything) check out this video. Happy to share some of my own if people need convincing as well. But this camera is magic when combined with good glass and knowledge for lighting, framing and space.

Freelance is a really rough world to survive in. It sounds like you make good money but with taxes and overhead you often just scrape by. The government does not make it easy, and most people paying freelancers balk at rates that would be reasonable when you consider cost of living, taxes, healthcare, union fees, legal fees etc.

I would mainly like the physical copies in the closet, not necessarily to project, so id shoot color negative. I am actually shooting my next Short Film on Super 16. It will be my first narrative short on film so very exciting. I have some old Rex16s that I am using to shoot 16mm for my wedding, but yeah just wanted something easy for home films. My big question I guess was if the current Kodak Cartidges will work for the older cameras like the higher end Canon Super 8 cameras etc or if you have to do custom windings or something. I know Kodak is going to release a really cool S8 camera in the near future with lab and scan costs built into the magazine price, that looks like it could be great with built in audio sync etc.

I would always advocate doing it for real. As for whether you can easily change it later, it will be a question of if the actor or objects ever block fully or partially the view of the screen. If that happens you would have to manually rotoscope them to create a mask for what you are putting on the screen. If you shot with green this would be easier as you could generate a chroma key. But like I said, make a choice and go with it and shoot it for real and it will be 100% believable.

I dont think anyone actually gives a flying $*!)# what an artist looks like if they are creating good works that are compelling and entertain. Why would you even be concerned what people think of how you look. The self involved teenagers on Facebook will not determine who hires you.

I am really interested in getting a super-8 or smaller 16mm camera for capturing home movies. I want to have real analog physical copies because I am more and more leery of the digital world. Of course a concern is cartridge costs and such. Will the Super 8 Cartirdges from Kodak work with most cameras? And is it easy to get 85b filters for super 8 cameras?

This opening shot... I can not spot any CGI (though I intuitively know there is some to at least replace the countryside/sky) but this opening shot is marvelous. Do you think it was a drone all the way through, or some sort of hidden cut switching to a crane with an op who can walk off? Would love to know if anyone actually knows or good speculation on it.

Really with that Canon you rig the camera to the lens. Fujinon makes a zoom that goes to 400mm but its at 3.8 at that zoom. I think no matter what you are looking at some heavy glass. Edit: You could also look for something in the 200mm range and use a teleconverter/doubler, you will loose 2 stops of light but it will likely be easier to find lenses that will work in that range.