Karim D. Ghantous Posted March 5 Posted March 5 8 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said: I've got a roll of 35mm in my fridge. If someone has a good project for it to be used on, let me know. I'm on the Sunshine Coast but can travel. I will provide the film stock, gear, camera operating/cinematography, colour grading, and editing, free of charge, and the person for whom I do the filming can pay for the processing and scanning. It's been stored in a fridge for 6 years so you'd have to bear that in mind. I may suggest to a local filmmaker that she might be interested in filming a short project with this roll of 35mm. That sounds like fun. I do have some spec/mock commercials I want to make. One in particular is a fake brand of instant coffee, and the commercial should look like it was made in the 1980s. You know what I mean: freeze frame at the end, coral filter, 35mm 4-perf, mild mid-Atlantic accent. Maybe we can have a chat about that down the line. I'm at least a year away from that. Some projects I just want to do because they're fun.
Premium Member Aapo Lettinen Posted March 5 Premium Member Posted March 5 just spent the whole day redesigning my A-minima 100ft magazine. Suddenly figured out how to make it 30% smaller and easier to load at the same time. Feeling so absurd returning here to the 'theoretical-level' conversation aften working physically with film mechanics the whole day. Just like, go grab a camera and run outside to film something! The "If I would have a IMAX camera" conversations don't really help getting anything done, they are surely entertaining but nothing ever happens if wasting electricity speculating theoretical cameras here 😅 2 1
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted March 5 Premium Member Posted March 5 20 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said: The one quality that counts with film shooters is that they take risks. You know, you have to do that in creativity. 100% safe creativity is a trap leading to mediocrity. In the end, the finished product won't show any of that risk on screen. When people watch whatever we make via streaming, they are never once connecting the dots about that risk. They don't know about the flashed rolls, the out of focus issues, the scratches/lab issues, camera problems, mixed formats, color fixes, dirt/dust removal, etc. All they see is the finished product and if you do it right, none of those things will even be seen. So yea, being "safe" in order to deliver that finished product, makes a lot of sense. You can limit risk with film for sure, but you can't guarantee anything. Modern digital cinema cameras are actually checking each frame in real time, so the files EXIST guaranteed on the card. Having that in your hand and being able to watch it back, is really nice on set. On my last shoot, which was the first time we shot hybrid, I had no choice because we were doing a concert and interviews as well. I wound up doing 2 days of digital before we shot film and I was able to watch all the footage and know what I had. This released me from the burden of being "safe" with film and I felt more secure grabbing stuff from a different angle than normally with the film camera. I would have been way more stressed and probably went too safe with the film, if I didn't have that digital material in the bag. It cost me around $5k just to be there, a single event that will never happen again. This is no different than a narrative, no different than another documentary either, if you miss the key shot for some reason, re-creating it may never happen. This is why so many people shoot digitally, so they can "guarantee" results, to reduce risk that the audience does not care about. For me as a filmmaker, the only person who matters is the audience. No audience = no production. In the end, the 16mm stuff of course looked the best. 19 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said: I think Tyler just likes to chew the fat. A lot of what he says about film related issues is bullshit. Excuse my French. Well, to be fair... 17 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said: He will probably respond by saying how many more miles of 35mm and 16mm he's shot than I have. Sure. I don't need to, because you already know the answer. 17 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said: Regarding a certain person who posts every day here, he does have some excellent posts, but mixed in with some incorrect advice or at least highly anecdotal advice here and there. Put it this way, other's mileage may vary. I've learned to take some of it with a grain of salt. Back when I was a service technician with an Apple service provider in the late 90's, early 2000's, I saw the same computers come in with the same problems all the time. If I told people on social media to "avoid" that computer, people said exactly what you did. I was the person who was wrong, because I was the guy fixing them when they broke. Mileage may vary, but it doesn't change the truth about the system. A few years later, Apple initiated a full recall of those systems even if they weren't under warranty, validating the problems were real and consequential. Today the entire industry looks at that exact computer as one of the reasons why Apple separated themselves from nVidia, which was a huge paradigm shift for the brand. Today, it's really not much different. I service film cameras, I scan peoples film, I shoot quite a lot of film every year, so I see the issues because I'm in it all day long, even when I'm not at the office. Honestly until very recently, I figured the same thing you did. Put film in camera, shoot film, process and you got a result if you did the job right. Then I noticed my stills film having issues. Then I noticed bad super 8 carts causing me to not shoot super 8. Then the remjet rain effect, which plagued the 50D stock which was my "go to" emulsion. Kodak eventually was copasetic and did a full-recall if you contacted them, thus verifying none of us were crazy. So now we are dealing with AHU issues, it feels identical to the rain effect time frame. Kodak is taking data in from customers and hopefully they will make changes, but to what end? Another recall and validation none of us were crazy in 6 - 8 months once it's solved? I had a DP few weeks ago bring his film here and it had a blue bar on every frame on the left side, making it completely unusable without restoration of some kind. He was sitting in my garden, head in hand crying to his producer about spending all this money making this film, renting a 416, lenses, expensive actors, big set pieces and now they have no movie. I had a commercial DP come by before we went on our trip, this time 35mm with an Aaton Penelope, same issue, same stock, different lab. I had a 1200ft of 16mm come in from a wedding cinematographer few weeks ago because it had a similar issue, blue bars, scratches and an entire 100ft daylight spool that was scratched beyond repair like someone dragged it on the floor. Perfectly good working cameras that had zero issues before AHU. You could call all of this random because there are "big Hollywood movies" shooting on AHU without an issue. But did you know, when a big movie shoots Kodak film, they MAKE that film specifically for that movie? They aren't sending a runner to the Kodak house in Hollywood or shipping from Easman's inventory. They have roughly 200,000ft of 35mm and 16mm manufactured ready to go at a single day, but it's split between stock types and warehouses. So if you're shooting more than around 80k feet, you need to pre-order in advance and they will make your film specifically for your movie. This is why many of the issues we all see, just aren't on bigger shows, it's the fresh custom cut film AND the commercial labs having their own strings for commercial productions. If a big production has a single 1k foot roll of 35mm that doesn't come out right, they probably have a good take on another roll and/or re-shoot that day later in the schedule. For them, it's not even a big deal, it's part of the budgeting. For us, it's a make or break situation, you either have it or you don't. You tell me, how is not getting anything usable a POSITIVE risk for a filmmaker? We're not talking about risk of maybe a slight change in exposure, focus issues or having to rely on shorter loads, we're talking about literally getting your film back and having a blue bar or big scratch that makes it unusable. We're talking about on-set camera jams and emulsion buildups in cameras, which clog the aperture plate and attract hairs and debris to the corners, causing long delays in production. We're talking about systemic issues which cause filmmakers to back away from film because they are concerned if they go out and shoot something important, they won't get anything back. You can understand why I'm raising the red flags and why it's very important for people to understand what we're seeing on the ground level. Unlike other techs, we scan, so we actually see the issues on the scanner and in our hands. Most people don't even think about reaching out to techs when they see these issues either, because it's too late. Once the film comes back wrong, you're already dead focused on the next steps for the project to be successful, not necessarily reaching to a tech. Once the labs have no answers, people appear to move on. 21 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said: Only chance to stand out is to shoot film. I concur, but only if it comes out perfect. If you don't deliver perfection, you are just proving to the neigh-sayers that film sucks. So in the end you do yourself a disservice, which is why so many people don't even try to make anything serious with film. 17 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said: I've got a roll of 35mm in my fridge. ... and what serious project will you be doing with a 400ft roll of 35mm? 17 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said: I've been concentrating on Super 8 the last year or so. Because I was spread too thin, also doing digital, I couldn't really justify getting into film more than I was. But just sold the digital camera. Getting the 16mm gear out this month. It sounds like you should have kept your digital package and continued being creative instead of collecting cameras that will sit in boxes or on shelves like nearly all the YouTube "film" people who literally do camera tests with their significant other and that's about it.
Premium Member Aristeidis Tyropolis Posted March 5 Premium Member Posted March 5 (edited) 2 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said: Then I noticed my stills film having issues. Yours, it is your cameras Tyler, not everyone's cameras, you had a botched shoot and decided to extrapolate to kingdom come because your two cameras failed. I have like four of them of various vintage and capabilities, one was actually brought in with disintegrated light seals and a faulty capacitor, changed it myself, all good. And I have recently been enjoying ECN-2 processed in marvelous overkill 14K (Yes fourteen) flat scans, with zero problems across all my cameras. If one breaks (unlikely) I will either try to fix or work with the others - I shoot literally tons of rolls of different stocks like all the time. After almost twenty years shooting stills film I only had this one light seal issue with an ebay camera, which is now perfect. Yea, some of them break sometimes, so freaking what? Doesn't mean anything to anyone. Are they less reliable that digital cameras? Yes. So? 2 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said: Then I noticed bad super 8 carts causing me to not shoot super 8 Shot 50D, 250D, 200T last year one after the other, not a single glitch. You had some bad carts, so? 2 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said: Then the remjet rain effect, which plagued the 50D stock which was my "go to" emulsion. Kodak eventually was copasetic and did a full-recall if you contacted them, thus verifying none of us were crazy. Ok, so something bad happened, which only happened within your circle and the rest of the world failed to mention a thing. While I believe you had issues and that you do know some who also had some issues, I don't believe it was as widespread as you said without you (it's your claim) providing concrete evidence to that effect. Even if some remjet issues where prevalent in some productions it still isn't defining anything specific other than that occurrence and Kodak's intention to rectify part of those issues by introducing AHU (this is speculation I don't know if true). 2 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said: So now we are dealing with AHU issues, it feels identical to the rain effect time frame I would like to see evidence to that effect - I personally contacted labs in Europe and I've still to hear of widespread issues but I will update if I hear different. 2 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said: Having that in your hand and being able to watch it back, is really nice on set. Define "nice". 2 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said: This is why so many people shoot digitally, so they can "guarantee" results, to reduce risk that the audience does not care about. This is your opinion, in my view people shoot digitally because they want the capabilities of a digital camera package, with guarantees on recorded clips actually existing, being one factor which is kinda obvious, but it's hardly the defining factor. The fact that you deduced that creative risk is some sort of obvious superficial conduit that translates in the way you described it, is a bit hilarious - creative risk is taken from any person because THEY WANT TO TAKE IT not because they expect some quantifiable specific reward from the audience - that would be absurd, superficial and naive. 2 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said: You tell me, how is not getting anything usable a POSITIVE risk for a filmmaker? Explain to us how is it taking extreme examples to prove a point a way to conduct a discussion about risk management? 2 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said: We're talking about on-set camera jams and emulsion buildups in cameras, which clog the aperture plate and attract hairs and debris to the corners, causing long delays in production. Can you provide evidence to that effect? 2 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said: I had a DP few weeks ago bring his film here and it had a blue bar on every frame on the left side, making it completely unusable without restoration of some kind. He was sitting in my garden, head in hand crying to his producer about spending all this money making this film, renting a 416, lenses, expensive actors, big set pieces and now they have no movie. So, they shot the whole thing without conducting a single test? I mean the whole thing with you choosing to describe the crying (I probably believe it) is a bit too much don't you think? Even if that person was the most unlucky person in the world, and did absolutely everything right, how is that not anecdotal? Terry Gilliam had a whole set destroyed by weather and a movie cancelled, how is that defining? Or is your statement that every independent 16mm production in L.A got screwed sideways by shooting film? 2 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said: I had a 1200ft of 16mm come in from a wedding cinematographer few weeks ago because it had a similar issue, blue bars, scratches and an entire 100ft daylight spool that was scratched beyond repair like someone dragged it on the floor. So he didn't test any of the stock he bought? 2 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said: Modern digital cinema cameras are actually checking each frame in real time, so the files EXIST guaranteed on the card. So? You can now buy like a DJI Ronin 4D, which is like a camera on a gimbal - can't get more ludicrously practical than that, footage looks agreeable, ProRes out of the box and super steady with like 98% of the people who watch "stuff" online on socials and on the streamers - you can even make it be like "hand-held" with a button as with all gimbals nowadays. Under that logic, why did you even buy that Blackmagic Camera, and use it with your expensive zoom to shoot trains and stuff on mountains or whatever, who even watches that stuff on ANY platform? Even if you have more professional gigs you could still do it with a package ten thousand times cheaper. Who even cares (as you say) about sensor readout speeds, none of it (as you say) translates directly to 99% of the average person. Even many of your B2B customers will struggle to tell apart two different 4k master edits from any professional camera nowadays. But it's not about that now, is it? You keep extrapolating actual facts (let's be fair, you are sometimes right), personal choices, random observations, anecdotal evidence, a mix of personal and professional experience, as an unassailable dogma that keeps creating a you/them dynamic that is not productive. You rushed to write on that other thread, that people have constant issues with AHU to a person that literally recorded 154 minutes of AHU with no problems and wasn't even inquiring about that at all. Why? Edited March 5 by Aristeidis Tyropolis 2
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted March 6 Premium Member Posted March 6 39 minutes ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said: Yours, it is your cameras Tyler, not everyone's cameras, you had a botched shoot and decided to extrapolate to kingdom come because your two cameras failed. My example was used in context of "potential issues" that you just don't get with digital. Which includes; labs throwing away negatives, delaying processing my weeks due to who knows what and inconsistent processing/scanning results. If you process at home, good on you, most of us do not have room or the time. I want to take pictures and see the results immediately to understand where I sit with projects. If labs can't achieve that with good results, then the tools will need to change. Plus, if I'm going to shoot something for fun, where I don't care about the results, I will do it on my iPhone: 39 minutes ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said: Shot 50D, 250D, 200T last year one after the other, not a single glitch. You had some bad carts, so? It was an epidemic, thousands of people were affected, it basically shut down Super 8 Ektachrome entirely (meaning they stopped production) until the cart/film formula was fixed. It was solved by mid 2022 on Ektachrome and Vision stocks shortly after. Kodak swapped all of my bad carts for free and anyone else who complained as well. We shot all of those carts out by the end of 2023. Now with AHU, they have updated the carts again. I believe the new carts hit the market in September/October 2025, so if your film is prior to then, you would not have any of the new issues either. The new carts center hub collapses too much for some cameras. They did this to help with friction inside the carts, but as a side effect, many super 8 cameras that have retractable take-up mechanisms, that aren't strong enough to push into the cart and take-up. So we see people yet again with cart issues, but because it doesn't affect ALL cameras, just rear loading ones with the retractable spindle, it's less of an epidemic. 39 minutes ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said: Ok, so something bad happened, which only happened within your circle and the rest of the world failed to mention a thing. The internet is full of discussions, this group, reddit, facebook groups, users complaining everywhere. Just because I also see it in the professional world, doesn't mean consumers and no/low budget filmmakers aren't suffering. I know for fact labs are keeping this under wraps, I have talked to a few lab managers directly. There is nothing they can do, the issues are too random, the only thing they can do is report to Kodak and hope more issues don't arise. 39 minutes ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said: I would like to see evidence to that effect - I personally contacted labs in Europe and I've still to hear of widespread issues but I will update if I hear different. AHU wasn't even really a fully-shipped product until September/October of last year. It seems Kodak pushed out a lot of remjet orders before AHU shipped and that means, I bet there is A LOT of remjet film sitting in Europe. The Cat number starting with 7, would be the indicator of AHU vs remjet, which usually starts with 8. So you can check your cans and super 8 boxes to see. 39 minutes ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said: Define "nice". Able to sleep at night knowing it's in the can, which is the main reason why so many DP's have turned away from and/or even against film. 39 minutes ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said: The fact that you deduced that creative risk is some sort of obvious superficial conduit that translates in the way you described it, is a bit hilarious - creative risk is taken from any person because THEY WANT TO TAKE IT not because they expect some quantifiable specific reward from the audience - that would be absurd, superficial and naive. There should be zero added risk shooting on film vs digital, if you can guarantee the camera, film and labs function properly. It's the breaking of that guarantee which has recently upset the industry, not the fact film is somehow more risky. I have never met an artist who doesn't think of their audience. Why you think composers and musicians have concerts of their work when it's available on record or streaming? Why do you think painters fight for viable positions in galleries and choose certain ones over other ones simply for their esthetics with huge open houses where people drink wine and eat cheese as they gaze over the lovely art on the walls? How about tattoo artists and thugs that paint up buildings? All of these people do it because they want their work to be seen, even more so with a movie like One Battle After Another; PTA wanted it to be seen a very specific way, his reward was the complements of the unique experience. So yea, real artists absolutely care about presentation and WHO sees their work. 39 minutes ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said: Explain to us how is it taking extreme examples to prove a point a way to conduct a discussion about risk management? It's not extreme if it happens on a regular basis. 39 minutes ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said: Can you provide evidence to that effect? There are already plenty of threads about AHU issues, you can look them up yourself, they're all over the group. 39 minutes ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said: So, they shot the whole thing without conducting a single test? I never asked to be honest. 39 minutes ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said: Terry Gilliam had a whole set destroyed by weather and a movie cancelled, how is that defining? The insurance company paid back for the lost time on Gilliam's movie and he wound up remaking it anyway. A random Joe putting everything they have on the line to make something and get nothing really usable back, it really destroys a person. I know they can't afford to re-shoot. I didn't even charge them for the scan. 39 minutes ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said: Or is your statement that every independent 16mm production in L.A got screwed sideways by shooting film? No, it's just hit or miss. Sometimes things come out great, other times they come out bad and it's not the clients fault. 39 minutes ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said: So he didn't test any of the stock he bought? I mean, the protocol is to do a camera test before shoot, I don't know how many people do. However, what batch number used for the test, is kinda irrelevant. Once you are in production, you will use like batch numbers for same scenes, but nobody is doing daily camera tests once you're in production. Plus, no-budget projects really have no way of affording that unnecessary step. By the time they get the tests back from the lab, they're usually done with the shoot, especially seeing as most stuff is shot Friday - Sunday these days due to lower cost rental. Plus, nobody knows if the film is the issue or the labs. For instance, I haven't seen anything back from Fotokem that's been damaged with AHU yet outside of clear camera faults. 39 minutes ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said: You can now buy like a DJI Ronin 4D, which is like a camera on a gimbal - can't get more ludicrously practical than that, footage looks agreeable, ProRes out of the box and super steady with like 98% of the people who watch "stuff" online on socials and on the streamers - you can even make it be like "hand-held" with a button as with all gimbals nowadays. I mean, if you like that style of shooting, I personally despise the gimbal look and refuse to even have one on any show. 39 minutes ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said: Under that logic, why did you even buy that Blackmagic Camera, The logic of every frame being checked so I know I have it? Sounds pretty logical to me. Very few cameras do this. Corrupt cards due to the cameras incapability of checking the file, cause most cameras to be useless in the long run. Not even our Canon R5 checks the file, we have lost lots of clips over the years due to card corruption. Plus, having a good digital cinema package, opens up more work. People asked me all the time to do jobs and I was constantly having to say no. The URSA Cine 12k offers everything anyone would ever want technology wise, so nobody can decline using my services simply because I don't have an Alexa. I'm building a reel for the camera, once done it should garnish the kit a lot more work. So far, I've been booked on several jobs and hopefully a documentary feature shortly. Where I'm too busy to take all jobs, the camera allows my roommate who is also a DP, to go out and shoot. 39 minutes ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said: ... use it with your expensive zoom to shoot trains and stuff on mountains or whatever, who even watches that stuff on ANY platform? Our best film has over 60,000 views and some good feedback. Unfortunately the channel it's on, doesn't have a lot of subscribers, so until I magically have the time to release more content, then it will kinda fester. Between YouTube, Vimeo, Facebook and Instagram, our brand has global recognition for our work however. I meet people all over the country randomly at train events and they know who we are and our work. Same goes for people who shoot on film, it's just wild how this stuff spreads through both the trains and film community. If we keep this up, we could make a living with railroads paying our way to make films for them, simply for marketing purposes. Our Narrow Gauge Films YouTube has exploded since we started doing digital camera content. It's nearly quadrupled our followers and we've expanded our channel to include technical stuff that nobody is talking about. All of it takes away from my daily work sadly. I couldn't shoot any of it without my digital package tho, that's one of the biggest reasons I got it. 39 minutes ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said: Even if you have more professional gigs you could still do it with a package ten thousand times cheaper. Not really, not in Hollywood. The URSA Cine 12k is one of the only acceptable cameras outside of an Alexa. If you have a toy camera, you're getting shit gigs like talking heads at a medical event. 39 minutes ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said: Even many of your B2B customers will struggle to tell apart two different 4k master edits from any professional camera nowadays. Not until they have the ability to re-frame in post without any loss in quality. 39 minutes ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said: You rushed to write on that other thread, that people have constant issues with AHU to a person that literally recorded 154 minutes of AHU with no problems and wasn't even inquiring about that at all. ... and? That's 5 lab rolls, umm... I'm scanning a 9 lab rolls today. Scanned 4 lab rolls monday/tuesday and have another batch of around 12 lab rolls to pickup from the lab Monday. Along with a pretty heavy 35mm job that we're pushing through in a 24hr window. So in a single week, I'm seeing around 4 times as much film, from various clients, from various labs, from various cameras, from around the country. An entirely different business than a single shoot, from a single lab, from most likely the same batch of film. Nobody knows where the issues are coming from, they are too random currently. P.S. Here is our last film, so you can see the kind of work we do. We have 7 of these in the series, 5 yet to be finished.
Premium Member Aristeidis Tyropolis Posted March 6 Premium Member Posted March 6 (edited) 10 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said: My example was used in context of "potential issues" that you just don't get with digital. Which includes; labs throwing away negatives, delaying processing my weeks due to who knows what and inconsistent processing/scanning results. If you process at home, good on you, most of us do not have room or the time. Your stills photography example was used in the context of your own personal anecdotal experience - I do not process at home. I personally get consistent results every time, but will absorb a miss from time to time and have ways to mitigate. 10 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said: I want to take pictures and see the results immediately to understand where I sit with projects. So you want a digital camera, and suddenly you had an epiphany that film is not immediate and sometimes things go south, outstanding thinking, I'm sure no one has ever made the same realization. 10 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said: . It was solved by mid 2022 on Ektachrome and Vision stocks shortly after. Kodak swapped all of my bad carts for free and anyone else who complained as well. We shot all of those carts out by the end of 2023. So something happened in 2022 which was adressed - great. 10 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said: So we see people yet again with cart issues, but because it doesn't affect ALL cameras, just rear loading ones with the retractable spindle, it's less of an epidemic. So unclear and not prevalent and not consistent, excellent... 10 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said: The internet is full of discussions, this group, reddit, facebook groups, users complaining everywhere. Where? Can you please post screenshots? 10 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said: I bet there is A LOT of remjet film sitting in Europe. The Cat number starting with 7, would be the indicator of AHU vs remjet, which usually starts with 8. So you can check your cans and super 8 boxes to see. There is some remjet yes, but it's all accounted for, or pre-ordered - if you wanna buy something today is going to be 99.9% AHU. 10 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said: The insurance company paid back for the lost time on Gilliam's movie and he wound up remaking it anyway Doesn't change the fact that the movie was cancelled and redone many years later completely differently. Insurance aside, it was an important event to Gilliam regardless. 10 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said: A random Joe putting everything they have on the line to make something and get nothing really usable back, it really destroys a person. I know they can't afford to re-shoot. I didn't even charge them for the scan. A random Joe tries to minimize the risk to the degree they can, but is fully aware of the residual ones. I don't think your example is an indication of anything in particular, just an anecdote of the many you tend to present. 10 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said: No, it's just hit or miss. Sometimes things come out great, other times they come out bad and it's not the clients fault. So an unquantifiable statement that doesn't really mean anything to anyone with no way to prove anything. 10 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said: There are already plenty of threads about AHU issues, you can look them up yourself, they're all over the group. You made the claim, the onus is on you to provide evidence to that effect, please provide these "overwhelming" screenshots and posts - or it's just hearsay. 10 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said: It's not extreme if it happens on a regular basis. No evidence to that effect. 10 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said: Able to sleep at night knowing it's in the can, which is the main reason why so many DP's have turned away from and/or even against film. Some but others disagree, so it's just opinion. 10 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said: I never asked to be honest. So pointless example then. 10 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said: I mean, the protocol is to do a camera test before shoot, I don't know how many people do. However, what batch number used for the test, is kinda irrelevant. Once you are in production, you will use like batch numbers for same scenes, but nobody is doing daily camera tests once you're in production. Plus, no-budget projects really have no way of affording that unnecessary step. By the time they get the tests back from the lab, they're usually done with the shoot, especially seeing as most stuff is shot Friday - Sunday these days due to lower cost rental. Plus, nobody knows if the film is the issue or the labs. For instance, I haven't seen anything back from Fotokem that's been damaged with AHU yet outside of clear camera faults. I personally don't know anyone (especially average Joe's) that don't shoot footage to check lenses, stock and camera across the board. 10 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said: I mean, if you like that style of shooting, I personally despise the gimbal look and refuse to even have one on any show. I don't, but just that's a matter of opinion and my ENTIRE point - you just think your way is the way others should follow, but the worst thing is that you think your personal realities are the realities of other people. I despise the digital look and the fact it needs curating to look acceptable, but that's just my opinion - you see how that works? 10 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said: There should be zero added risk shooting on film vs digital, if you can guarantee the camera, film and labs function properly. It's the breaking of that guarantee which has recently upset the industry, not the fact film is somehow more risky. This whole sentence sits in your imagination and has no reflection in reality. 10 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said: I have never met an artist who doesn't think of their audience. Why you think composers and musicians have concerts of their work when it's available on record or streaming? Why do you think painters fight for viable positions in galleries and choose certain ones over other ones simply for their esthetics with huge open houses where people drink wine and eat cheese as they gaze over the lovely art on the walls? How about tattoo artists and thugs that paint up buildings? All of these people do it because they want their work to be seen, even more so with a movie like One Battle After Another; PTA wanted it to be seen a very specific way, his reward was the complements of the unique experience. So yea, real artists absolutely care about presentation and WHO sees their work. This is pivoting again and it's not what I said, you are making up your own strawman arguments again 10 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said: .. and? That's 5 lab rolls, umm... I'm scanning a 9 lab rolls today. Scanned 4 lab rolls monday/tuesday and have another batch of around 12 lab rolls to pickup from the lab Monday. Along with a pretty heavy 35mm job that we're pushing through in a 24hr window. So in a single week, I'm seeing around 4 times as much film, from various clients, from various labs, from various cameras, from around the country. What "and" and "umm" and "oooh" are you talking about Tyler? Who asked? Nobody asked you or anyone for feedback or experiences or questions on AHU scratches on that thread, it was actually a very different question, you just rushed to post whatever, because you have some weird obsession in proving your confirmation bias, which frankly I don't get. You don't even let people have discussions anymore without you intervening with your "experiences". Edited March 6 by Aristeidis Tyropolis clarity 1
Jon O'Brien Posted March 6 Posted March 6 (edited) 23 hours ago, Aristeidis Tyropolis said: ... So, they shot the whole thing without conducting a single test? ... So he didn't test any of the stock he bought? Tyler wrote, not all that long ago (maybe a year ago?) here at cinematography.com, that he doesn't shoot camera tests. I could never in a million years find the actual quote because how could you, from all the reams of words that you'd have to read through. But I read it here. Quite a few times he's complained that all he ever sees film cinematographers doing is shooting tests. He takes that as a sign of unprofessionalism. Amateurs just shoot tests. I'm sorry, but if you shoot film, and you don't shoot tests before a project, you shouldn't be shooting film. Why all the tests, shot on film? Because people want to do a good job, and you have to do tests with film. Why so few actual projects, or completed films, shot on film? Because filmmaking isn't easy, and it costs money. It's no mystery. Thus, you see lots of tests. Good camera operators and cinematographers just do them. That's life shooting film. I wouldn't go near with a barge pole any film cinematographer or 'director' who wants to shoot a short film without doing camera, lens, and film stock etc tests. I would just walk away, no comment. Bye. Sometimes one is forced to comment, after years of reading stuff that is just ........ Edited March 6 by Jon O'Brien
Jon O'Brien Posted March 6 Posted March 6 Let's imagine someone, in the late 19th century in a remote rural area, who needs to go out hunting, to feed the family over winter. Horses and strong cart is prepared, salt for adding to the cuts of meat, perhaps ice packed into boxes, surrounded by straw. The horses are shod. Camping gear prepared, butchering gear, leather bridles, girths, reins etc attended to. A course of progress is mapped out, using local landmarks, should something go wrong and the hunting party doesn't return within an expected window of time. Help is secured, a trusted neighbour, who isn't himself a good shot but he's excellent with taking care of the cooking and camp prep. The small group coordinates responsibilities. The group heads out, very early one morning. Along the way, while chatting, the leader says that the rifles have not been tested or sighted in beforehand. The trusted neighbour says, ....... "Eh??! But you know they're sighted in, right? The guy leading the outfit, says "No, but it will be fine." They eventually see the game, just as expected, and the hunt begins. They miss. The animals spook, and the herds run away, out of range. Opportunity lost. They spend a day sighting in the rifles, out on the veldt. Spooking all the game even more. The neighbour is now ruing the day he went on this trip. He has far more important things to be doing with his time and resources than going into the field with a man who willingly chose to go unprepared. Is it any wonder they had problems? Choose carefully who to work with.
Jon O'Brien Posted March 6 Posted March 6 Test, and then test again, until you are sure of your gear, lighting, whatever else, and your film stock. Then do the shoot. If not, shoot digital. Like everyone else.
Jon O'Brien Posted March 7 Posted March 7 If you are a doofus, do not shoot film. Stick to video, which is easy, and once you buy the cam, pretty much costs jack s.
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted March 7 Premium Member Posted March 7 3 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said: Tyler wrote, not all that long ago (maybe a year ago?) here at cinematography.com, that he doesn't shoot camera tests. As a camera tech and professional filmmaker, you could probably ascertain why I wouldn't personally need to run a camera test on my own productions, seeing as it's my money and I know my kit intimately. If I get a new piece of kit in, I will run a test. If I rebuild my camera, I will run a test as well. I'm happy to show you my camera tests as I built my kit, I have lots of them. I just don't gloat or publish them because there is no reason to. The information within, has no value to anyone else. I recommend to ANYONE who buys ANY equipment that is new to them, to ALWAYS test it first. Any customers who get rebuilds from me, get free processing and scanning on their 100ft tests. That's just baked into the price. Not only that, but I also help my customers put together their packages and we have done multiple camera tests with them here at the shop. Before each shoot, I check FDD, collimation, do basic scratch tests and clean everything up. If the camera is being rented for a production, THEY do their own tests anyway, so it's out of my control anyway. If I'm a DP being hired on a shoot, I know my camera works because I've use it all the time, but generally the first AC's want to do a test to get more film time, so we go out and do it. A few of those "camera team" and "look" tests are actually on my NGF YouTube channel because they were interesting. 3 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said: He takes that as a sign of unprofessionalism. Amateurs just shoot tests. A camera technician test should be charts, double exposures for registration, checking lenses; backfocus/markings and stop consistency in a fixed lit environment. The would be "film" people on social media, consider a camera test, some footage of their dog in the back yard or going to the beach with their significant other. I get it, but that doesn't help a tech or anyone figure out if the camera system works. So it's really not a camera test, it's more like a "user" test, to see if you as the user are capable of making images. Plus, so many people only shoot that 100ft daylight spool and then nothing else. So was that "test" simply for social media? That's my beef with "camera tests" posted on social media. It has nothing to do with equipment evaluation tests. 3 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said: Why so few actual projects, or completed films, shot on film? Because filmmaking isn't easy, and it costs money. It's no mystery. Thus, you see lots of tests. Good camera operators and cinematographers just do them. That's life shooting film. In the real world, if you aren't completing things, then are you even a filmmaker? If money prevents you from making productions, then you're biting off too much. That's no excuse to never finish things. When I was young, I had to deliver because I worked in broadcast. That mentality is what's allowed me to shoot things, tell a story with what I shoot, finish and release them quickly. Where I'm not under that constraint today, I'm absolutely always making and releasing new content on a regular basis, even if the shows don't have actors. Tests have nothing to do with any of this. 3 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said: I wouldn't go near with a barge pole any film cinematographer or 'director' who wants to shoot a short film without doing camera, lens, and film stock etc tests. I would just walk away, no comment. Bye. Sometimes one is forced to comment, after years of reading stuff that is just ........ Nobody with a barge pole is going near a Director or DP whose excuse for not producing finished products, is that film is expensive. Also, nobody in their right mind should ever hire a DP who doesn't know their lenses and stocks inside and out, are you kidding me?
Doyle Smith Posted March 7 Posted March 7 On 2/25/2026 at 6:16 PM, Tyler Purcell said: Flat means everything within a frame is in focus. Kane has lots of shallow depth of field shots, along with some incredible flat shots as well. It's a masterclass of using both to your advantage as a cinematographer at a time where reflex viewing just didn't exist. Plus at the time, actors faces needed to be clear at all times, it was just the style of the period. So any scene with multiple people, needed to be pretty flat as an industry requirement. Today we just achieve that with blocking and focus racking. There are plenty of great films that are very flat over-all, but that style of filmmaking is very old hat. Nobody prevents you from shooting that way, but most people would rather not. So what I gather is that you'd rather NOT be creative if you aren't allowed to use certain tools. Kubrick was a director for hire on Spartacus. The film was shot on Technirama which is anamorphic VistaVision style 35mm. I'm sure Kirk Douglas himself made the deal WAY before the original director was fired. I also know for fact, Kubrick hated working on the project, but Kirk Douglas really pressured him to do it. The film is the least Kubrick movie made, it feels like a generic Hollywood fodder outside the cinematography. 2001 was shot on 5 perf 65mm because Douglas Trumbull and Kubrick felt the visual effects would be far superior on large format. At the time, compositing on 35mm was very poor and doing reductions from 65mm to a 35mm string out, didn't really save anything. It made way more sense to make the film large format from the get go and give the audience a real experience. The Road Show version that Kubrick intended, was immediately rejected by MGM during its first screenings to executives, with over 27 minutes of added footage. This is why the theatrical cut today, seems like an intermission is not needed, the original theatrical cut was entirely different and FAR more nerdy, with a 10 minute black and white science intro and 17 minutes of other scenes of space life. So it was very much a "technical" reason why Kubrick used 65mm for capture. Nolan's movies make a lot of money, so the studio hands him the keys and says "good luck". If you've noticed, nobody else has shot an entire movie on 15P yet, Nolan will be the first and probably only person to ever do it as the 3 minute loads really slow things down production wise. Frankly, after seeing One Battle on IMAX, I'm shocked VistaVision isn't used more for IMAX dialog scenes. Especially with 50D, the audience would never notice. Your definition of "flat" has confused me. I always think of flat as it applies to lighting. Little to no modeling. No creation of planes and definition. No sense of a 3rd dimension created in a 2d medium. This is essentially what other posters are calling "mud". I don't think I would characterize Kane as flat. I'm not a scholar but I thought Toland or Wells called it "deep focus ". FWIW, I saw 2001 in 1970 in it's 70mm print and multi channel sound track (magnetic??).It was magnificent audibly and visually. Later I saw Trumball give a presentation at a New York SMPTE breaking down composite elements and sfx techniques. 1
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted March 7 Premium Member Posted March 7 23 minutes ago, Doyle Smith said: No creation of planes and definition. No sense of a 3rd dimension created in a 2d medium. This is essentially what other posters are calling "mud". Yea there is no sense of separation within a given scene, nothing to differentiate the foreground from the background, IE; flat. Mountains have depth. Deserts have flatness. So using common nomenclature, wouldn't it make sense to call something that has no depth; flat? 23 minutes ago, Doyle Smith said: I don't think I would characterize Kane as flat. I'm not a scholar but I thought Toland or Wells called it "deep focus ". If the action happens on a single plane of existence like a shallow stage, then it can be pretty flat. Much of Kane uses the moving camera to help create depth, but that vision of having everything in frame be in focus, is the anthesis of depth. Kane also has multiple uses of shallow depth of field, amongst other tricks. Gotta say, Toland was not a one trick pony. The film holds up considerably well and one of my favorites. 23 minutes ago, Doyle Smith said: FWIW, I saw 2001 in 1970 in it's 70mm print and multi channel sound track (magnetic??).It was magnificent audibly and visually. I'm sad the original prints all faded, I have not seen an original one because out here, nobody plays faded prints. I have seen 3 versions on 70mm; an older print made in the 90's struck from a "new" at the time IN. A brand new print struck from the same IN. The full restoration version new print, which I believe was made from the IP elements. None of them looked anywhere near as good as the Ultra Blu-ray, I was blown away by that version, specifically the fact it's sharp as a tack, something none of the other prints were. I have seen bits and pieces of it projected in HDR 4k in a theater setting and was blown away by how good it looked. Living here in LA, we are so lucky to get yearly 70mm film festivals and man, last year we saw so many NEWLY STRUCK prints too. I feel some of the films like Vertigo, seem sharper than 2001 simply because they were made from original camera elements, rather than dupe elements. Other prints like Lawerence of Arabia, of which I've seen a 1989 restoration print, a mid 90's re-strike and the new digital record out to 70mm, are for some reason variable in quality. I don't think any were made from the original negative and seemed again, less sharp than you'd expect for 5 perf, having seen A LOT of newer 5 perf originated shows today. One print that did blow me away was the newly restored and released Close Encounters of the Third Kind, man that 70mm print was stellar, sharp and detailed to a level I have not seen on any other viewing in my lifetime. 23 minutes ago, Doyle Smith said: Later I saw Trumball give a presentation at a New York SMPTE breaking down composite elements and sfx techniques. Awesome! I saw him too at an event years back when the Academy theater first opened up and had a few special events. One of those events was a screening of an original 70mm print of Star Wars that was NOT faded. When Jedi released, they had struck NEW 70mm prints of the original two movies and this print was in the Academy archive since 1983. So it was for better or worse, a pretty "clean" copy of Star Wars on 70mm, I don't even think it said "A New Hope" at the head either. Film broke twice, everyone had a great time, thing was a totally unique experience, I really wish they could have screened it at least two or three times to get more people in there. Sadly, the UHD BluRay still blows it away, but it was SUCH a cool experience. 1
Karim D. Ghantous Posted March 8 Posted March 8 19 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said: Mountains have depth. Deserts have flatness. So using common nomenclature, wouldn't it make sense to call something that has no depth; flat? Images captured with deep focus are by definition 'deep'. It's flat if you have a shallow plane of focus, precisely because the plane of focus is so thin. Either way, however we label these techniques, deeper focus works better for most movies, for most shots, for most people, for most subjects, for most clients. Occasionally you can and should add some pepper - but not too much. A rare example of where shallow focus actually works and is warranted:
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted March 8 Premium Member Posted March 8 32 minutes ago, Karim D. Ghantous said: Occasionally you can and should add some pepper - but not too much. Well yea, but still... you can't easily do this on S16, which is my point.
Premium Member Aapo Lettinen Posted March 8 Premium Member Posted March 8 I dunno really. We live in entirely different universes, everyone on one's own. Can this or that be used for art? Whose art really? is it wrong if it is non-standard? I was feeling artsy in the morning and before breakfast recorded stuff for my indie documentary. Used large wind gong to replace bass guitar and made up my own language for lyrics because they cannot be understood by anyone. two tracks of guitalele and one of baritone electric guitar (no amp modelling or anything, just some reverb!) but you will never guess what that bowed psaltery sounding instrument is because no one plays that instrument with violin bow. Who does music like this really. Absolutely non-standard. did not even correct tiny pitch or timing issues here and there. AI will try to scrape this and completely freaks out, it cannot even understand what language that is. But it transmits the emotion of the single observer abandoned by the rest of the humanity to the post-apocalyptic world. 3 1
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted March 8 Premium Member Posted March 8 7 hours ago, Aapo Lettinen said: I was feeling artsy in the morning and before breakfast recorded stuff for my indie documentary. Used large wind gong to replace bass guitar and made up my own language for lyrics because they cannot be understood by anyone. two tracks of guitalele and one of baritone electric guitar (no amp modelling or anything, just some reverb!) but you will never guess what that bowed psaltery sounding instrument is because no one plays that instrument with violin bow. This is great man, I love your music.
Jon O'Brien Posted March 9 Posted March 9 (edited) Yes, it's good music. I'm a musician too. I think quite a few musicians are interested in filmmaking -- I see music as similar to film in that both play out over time, both start, and run their course through time. I think the world can be beautiful with people -- it's just more of a challenge. Nature is beautiful, but lonely. But still, it's beautiful. Thankfully we've still got nature to enjoy. The world hasn't all turned into an industrial workshop just yet. The great thing about music is that you don't need a film crew or a big budget to do it. Just grab an instrument and play. Or sing. So simple. Filmmaking is so complex most of the time. Edited March 9 by Jon O'Brien
Karim D. Ghantous Posted March 9 Posted March 9 22 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said: Well yea, but still... you can't easily do this on S16, which is my point. Not a great loss IMHO. 1
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted March 9 Premium Member Posted March 9 (edited) 2 hours ago, Karim D. Ghantous said: Not a great loss IMHO. Just a different vibe that's all. I just personally like that separation from subject to background which is not possible to do with the same field of view on smaller imager systems. Maybe it's because when I was younger, it was something I couldn't afford to do. Now that I'm older, I feel like I want to use it more because I couldn't in my past. Edited March 9 by Tyler Purcell 1
Premium Member Aapo Lettinen Posted March 11 Premium Member Posted March 11 (edited) On 3/9/2026 at 2:08 AM, Jon O'Brien said: Yes, it's good music. I'm a musician too. I think quite a few musicians are interested in filmmaking -- I see music as similar to film in that both play out over time, both start, and run their course through time. I think the world can be beautiful with people -- it's just more of a challenge. Nature is beautiful, but lonely. But still, it's beautiful. Thankfully we've still got nature to enjoy. The world hasn't all turned into an industrial workshop just yet. The great thing about music is that you don't need a film crew or a big budget to do it. Just grab an instrument and play. Or sing. So simple. Filmmaking is so complex most of the time. Yes there is good people existing but they are such a small minority that they have no other hope than to make art to try to survive mentally and wait and wait hoping that the bad greedy people would die and the World could then become a little better place. The poster image of the lonely pine sapling is taken on a huge 2 million ton pile of toxic mine tailings which they took copper and gold and silver out of using cyanide, then the rest was just abandoned in the middle of the forest and is leaching heavy metals and uranium to the nearby river. Once the profit is extracted they lose interest and let the environment to survive on its own. The frost-looking stuff is not ice and the black looking stuff is not soot, they are metal oxides forming over the bright-orange sand-like waste due to exposure to rain and oxygen. It was the perfect image for the poster because it sums up the impact of the humans to the nature so well and showing the nature will still try to survive. I translated some lyrics of another song which is not recorded yet, that is again a made-up language by me but lyrics are telling similar kind of stories about destruction, war, genocide and extinction than most of the other soundtrack songs of the movie. These are pronounced differently than English or Finnish, I marked them down in a way which makes it easiest to remember how they fit the melody Edited March 12 by Aapo Lettinen
Premium Member Aapo Lettinen Posted April 4 Premium Member Posted April 4 (edited) Made more music yesterday. Some of the sad local news must have influenced it, I recognized the whole storyline there when mixing this and changed the song name then Edited April 4 by Aapo Lettinen 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now