Tyler Purcell

Since I shoot so much film these days, I started noticing a very strange issue with my film. My shoots are always identical. I buy brand new film from kodak on monday or tuesday. I fly out/travel on wednesday, I shoot thursday - sunday and I come home and drop the film off monday to be processed tuesday morning. The first thing I noticed is that stuff I shot earlier in the shoot, was more noisy than the stuff shot later in the shoot. Mind you, the film is always stored in the hotel room refrigerator. Since I edit so many different shows shot on film, I started noticing a trend. Some shows were super noisy, others were not. I started asking the filmmakers about their processing practices and it was very clear; people who didn't process right away, had a much higher noise level then people who processed immediately. To prove this theory, I brought some friends in to do a camera test between 16mm and 35mm and store it in a refrigerator for a few weeks before processing. The results were, pretty horrible actually. I'd be more than happy to assemble what it looked like, but most likely you'd just say "it's film, it's suppose to be grainy". However, you can nearly eliminate the noise, if you process right away. Since I shoot so much film, I know what it's SUPPOSE to look like. People can go on all day about "my film looked fine" when processed after a few weeks, months or years, but just imagine how much better it would have looked if it were processed immediately? My goal as a filmmaker is to make things that look professional, not that look like a student film, full of nasty grain. Well, considering I see a difference between what was shot on the first day of a shoot, to the last, yea one would think that is noticeable within a few days. Yep, but if you push it 2 stops... it has the same noise floor as 500t! So it only takes a reasonable person to think. Hmm... what is the difference between 200t and 500t then? It's simple... The tungsten stocks are, pretty much the same stock. The difference is that Kodak has formulated them so when processed, they have different slightly different optimal IE range. Also, 2 stops is a nothing difference. I've over-exposed 500T by 8 stops before and still had details in my highlights. I've underexposed 500T to the point where my meter said "below" (which means zero) with an F.1.2 lens and was still able to get a beautiful image out of it. So the concept that 200t and 500t are literally the same stock, just slightly balanced different for the sake of processing, makes perfect sense to me. As I said earlier, imagine if every stock needed to processed differently? I can't afford to do these tests however, but Kodak has done them for years and I've seen them, I know what I state is accurate.

Video camera preamp noise creates an overlay similar to film grain. Sure, it's not exactly the same as film grain, but it is in most cases an unwanted noise floor within your image. That's the whole point of this discussion... noise floor. Otherwise, there is nothing to talk about. Kodak's sensitivity hasn't improved much in the last 20 years. What they've focused on is making a stock that has finer grain, thus the noise floor isn't as prevalent when using at higher exposure indexes. They simply offer balanced stocks that can be processed all the same, for cost savings. If you were to rate 200t at 500T, it would have nearly identical noise floor as 500T. This has been proven time and time again by numerous filmmakers. They are in essence the same stock, just like 50D and 250D. The only difference is the balance when processed. From my experience, the fog level is always increasing from the moment the film is manufactured. This is why Kodak destroys or gives away all unsold stock after 6 months of sitting. When the fog level increases, you need more light to push past the fog. So the film is still usable, it's just the base IE has changed. So if you shoot a new roll of film and let it sit in your refrigerator, the fog level is still increasing. Reality is, the image is actually fading. I don't have any A/B comparison footage that directly compares. What I do have is quite a few examples of film processed next day vs several days later. I even have a 16 vs 35mm example to show noise floor between the two formats, which is super nice to have. Remember, most of the time it's a mistake when you don't process right away. So it's not like we're actively trying to destroy a few rolls of film ya know?

I know a bit about them, when you say the display is not working, you mean there is no electricity going into the lamp? Have you measured the lamp ports to insure it has electricity going to it?

The loops will always jump, that's why they're there in the first place. Sometimes if the camera settings are just right, they will seem like a blur.

That's what I kinda thought. You can go deeper into the film plane, but not the opposite way. It'll always look good in the viewfinder because you're just focusing to the ground glass. You do need to measure flange distance.

This is the same film from last time right? There was some really nice stuff in there.

Yea that's totally normal... but make your loops a tiny bit bigger.

For 4k Pro Res you really should be using CF cards. There is no limit with CF cards, just SD cards.

Actually, hitting the film with more light, AKA using a lower ISO stock, does make a huge difference. I have done numerous tests to prove without a shadow of a doubt, the higher the ISO, the faster you need to process in order to eliminate noise. With the narrow gauge formats, the difference between one day and one week is astronomical at 500ISO, but not as noticed on 200T or 250D. This is because there is less light hitting the film on the higher ISO stock. If you were to rate 500T at 200iso, it would react like 200iso stock does in terms of noise level. So it has nothing to do with the optimum ISO range of the stock, it has everything to do with how much light the stock has been exposed to. Remember, the reason why film stock has an optimum ISO range is due to processing and color. Imagine having tungsten balanced stock that you have to filter for daylight that doesn't have a base ISO at all. You simply rate it to whatever ISO you want, write it on the can and the lab processes it at the appropriate length in the bath. That would be expensive for the lab work AND very time consuming for the lab workers. However, it would work fine, just not as "efficient" as properly balanced stocks. Kodak's solution was making properly balanced stocks that can run together in the bath. It's a far more complex process for Kodak, but it's easier on the labs, creating greater consistency.

Yea you could try that! Just gotta re-check the flange distance however.

Sadly we never really found a solution. I got it working A LOT better, but no matter what, it would skip every once in a while. We compared it to my camera and there was NO difference. The pulldown was not pulling the film down on every rotation of the movement, but nothing indicated it being broken or out of calibration. Someday I'd like another shot at servicing it, just to see if I can get it working better.

That blade assembly is not easy to re-assemble. I've had them apart many times. The pins the blades ride on are not removable, so I don't know why you'd be missing it. It took me a while to figure out and honestly I don't have very many tips besides try a few different configurations of alignment of the metal squeezing part. So yea, you're missing a ring with 3 screws that holds the rubber piece. I can get probably get you one, if you can send me some pix of the assembly so I can make sure I get the right one.

Yea send me pix! I know the camera like the back of my hand. Do the blades open and close fine? The metal ring has 3 crews on it and a little lip for the rubber eye cup. If that 3 screw ring is not installed, there will be nothing to put the rubber eye piece.

Well, none of that film is going to come out good. Maybe for an experimental film for fun but not for anything worth shooting.

Not really. He bitched and moaned about shooting "Hail Caesar" on 35mm, but that was a while ago. The Coen's probably will never use him again considering how much he hates film and they love it for their feature productions.