Tyler Purcell

The way I deal with Kodak is calling our local sales agent. They put a quote together and send it to me via e-mail. Than I call the support number and pay for it over the phone via credit card. I'm pretty sure it works the same way for Canada, you guys have your own sales people AND a different number to call. If you find your local sales agent, they can usually take the CC over the phone and process the order as well. The film will be shipped to you from either storage in Canada or in the US.

Well of course you had to bring up the F35/Genesis. When I made my statement, we were talking about broadcast cameras, not $200K cinema specific cameras that share literally nothing in common with standard 3 chip CCD cameras. Not only does the F35/Genesis use a very special 5k imager with color stripes vs a color pattern array, it's the only CCD camera (yes I know about the SRW-9000 integrated camera that came later, but it's the same tech) that can work with standard PL mount cinema glass, breaking the barrier the F900/950 and F23 had. Honestly, the first cameras I ever used were single or 3 tube, not CCD. I have used pretty much all of the later CCD Betacam SP, Digibeta, IMX and DVCAM camcorders. Sadly, I left the creative side of the industry just as HD came around, but I was heavily involved with engineering. I was the one who tested all the new equipment and decided what cameras clients should buy. In the early days, we worked quite a lot with JVC who had some great inexpensive cameras like the GY-HD100 - 250. We also worked with Panasonic, using the early versions of the varicam and eventually with sony when they converted their IMX cameras to 1080p HD. My last industry event was when the Red ONE was announced in 2006 and I remember how amazing it looked compared to anything else on the market at the time, especially for that price point. Remember, the F35/Genesis hadn't even come out at the time of the first Red tests, they were very early to the game. Watching that RED footage on a 2k projector in a theater, I knew that was the future. Since then, I've been a pretty hard core CMOS devotee because they solved all the problems with the Bayer pattern (over sampling), dynamic range (RAW recording) size, weight and battery life. It did take them until 2009 to get it right though, the release of the Dragon was the end of any CCD cameras career. When Arri released their first Alexa, it was even better and the rest is history. So next year is 2020, making it 10 years since CCD's died and yes, we've come A LONG WAY since then. Where I agree with you the "cinema" imager Sony created for the F35/Genesis is an amazing piece of kit, the technology is stuck at 1080p and furthermore, getting a high dynamic range out of the imager and into the edit bay was very tricky and nearly impossible with the associated SRW-1 deck. Today we can get 12 bit 444 Cine EI log out of the camera using an Odyssey Q7 recorder and yea, it's stunning for nearly 10 year old tech. However, its huge, chews up batteries like candy, has issues with line skipping/aliasing and pretty severe morie as well. Plus, I hate to say it, but 1080p just doesn't cut the mustard anymore, doesn't matter how filmic it looks, the tech is just not there. So without a doubt, if we took any of the classic Varicam's and put them against a modern digital cinema camera, sadly the new camera would blow the doors off it in every single test segment. Modern Arri and Red specs: Dynamic range = RAW recording 14 - 16 stops depending on the camera Recording = 16 bit 444 lossless (red and arri raw) or 12 bit 444 Pro Res Size/Weight = is 6x6x6 small enough? That's the average size and weight is around 5lb. Battery life = is 3 - 4 hours ok? Lens Mount = Industry standard PL Imager size = Super 35mm or larger to give a cinematic field of view Resolution = 4 - 8k depending on brand Audio = 2 - 12 channels of lossless 24 bit 192 khz depending on which adaptor is used Frame Rate = 24 - 150fps Today with tools like DaVinci resolve and modern cameras, you can manipulate the image anyway you want, it's such an easy process that makes the image look even more filmic than previous generations of cameras. It's becoming harder and harder to tell the difference between film and digital, which was not the case during the CCD days, where the cameras clearly looked like digital when projected digitally. Beautiful colors the F35/Genesis had, but over-all it was a technology that was dumped for good reason.

The imager maybe 12 stops, but since the recording system is locked to Rec709, there is no way to get that much dynamic range out of the camera. This is why we have cameras that shoot raw or wider dynamic range codec's with log color space like Pro Res XQ, which has kinda become commonplace. Sadly most of the ENG cameras are at best around 8 stops of latitude, there isn't much you can do about it even with film mode. If I put the 1st gen blackmagic pocket camera beside it, you'd see right away the difference and it's very subtle, but it's details in the highlights that makes the most difference. If you're shooting an exterior and have a sunny day with clouds and you protect the highlights, you'd see details in the clouds that you wouldn't with the ENG camera, this is the same with all the CCD cameras. They just don't quite have the same dynamic range.

Finish in 8k because.....

I mean I've done quite a bit of testing on 16mm resolution and machines. I don't have enough input to give a direct answer, but I'm starting to believe there is merit to scanning 16mm at 4k or above. Some of the tests I've done, really surprise me, though completely impossible to see through the internet, playing back the Pro Res XQ 12 bit 444 4k file on my 10 bit 444 4k monitor, the difference between the 2k and 4k scans right away. It's not just crispness in the image, but also there is more wiggle room for reformatting, which is nice. 50 ISO super 16 resolves around 3k, but 500T is more like 2k or slightly above. So it's a real tossup, do you scan what the format can resolve only, or do you scan more than it can resolve? We've done some 4k super 8 scans too, they're quite interesting, really beautiful grain and detail that I've never seen from super 8 before.

Had the OP followed my guidelines before rolling, there would be no problems with that roll of film. Again, with cameras that you thread through a door like normal 35mm cameras, hairs and dirt build up are a huge problem because you have this cavernous room the film goes through, touching all sorts of rollers, bending in all crazy directions, with huge build up of static electricity due to film speed. Where I would not be worried about emulsion buildup on a 1000ft roll of film on a clean 35mm camera, I would be worried about hairs and yes there is so much down time on a narrative production, you have PLENTY of time to check the gate, even if it's between lens changes which are quite common as you well know. Again, the OP was not shooting on 35mm and I have a hunch, they didn't have a professional team of assistants to take care of the camera for them. Most modern 16mm cameras are either 100ft daylight spools or coaxial magazines which are mostly loaded in a room that's not associated with the camera. Thus, things like dust and debris are very easy to control and keep down. In fact, I thread the entire magazine in my changing bag so it's really impossible for any dust to get in. 16mm cameras have the benefit of having a much slower speed, so less chance of static build up. Plus, since the film routing is generally very simple, there are less rollers touching the film, less bending, less film conforming to the mechanics, thus less chance of emulsion build-up. A brand new 400ft roll of film, running through a cleaned camera, should not have a single issue and likewise, in my experience there have been nearly no issues. I did get a hair recently in the gate on a long take because I was an idiot and let the magazine with the film protector cap off, sit in a very dirty room overnight and without looking at the magazine, slapped it onto the camera. Had I just followed my own practice, it wouldn't have been there and it's a simple fix in DaVinci, so no complaints. I've had far more issues with lab staples rubbing image away three layers deep on the wind up process when it comes out of the bath. Nearly every roll of film I shoot has this issue and it's destroyed some great shots at the tail end of rolls. I've had to do some heavy duty masking/matting to fix it. Where I appreciate your comments, I shoot film nearly every week. I shoot super 8, 16mm, super 16 and 35mm of various kinds. I've shot what I've owned; Arri 2C, Moviecam Compact, Aaton 35III, XTR Prod, LTR, Bolex EBM, Krasnogorsk - 3, Beaulieu 4008. I've also used the Arricam ST and LT quite a bit as a friend use to own them. Cleaning the gate between rolls, keeping the movement compartment super clean between rolls and on cameras that can, threading them in the changing bag. I even load my Bolex in the changing bag after I spend 10 minutes cleaning every square mm. Remember, these are the same practices I share with my renters and ya know what, not a single one of them have had a lick of issues following them. In fact, I've personally scanned 8 of the last projects shot with my cameras, both 35mm and 16mm, there isn't even a tiny bit of build up on the gate, nothing at all. No scratches, no hairs, no dust, nothing. IF YOU CLEAN THE CAMERA BETWEEN ROLLS VERY THOROUGHLY, you won't have a lick of issues, especially with 16mm cameras. Now if you've got a beat up worn piece of junk throw away camera from a rental house, I would be concerned and probably be more careful.

Send me an e-mail tye1138@mac.com and we can chat about it.

How long of a load do you want? I have lots of stuff.

It depends on the camera really. Some cameras are worse at collecting emulsion build due to the design then others. Hairs are absolutely an issue with static electricity and in the 16mm world, the SR"s are the worst cameras for hairs in the gate. My Aaton's don't have those issues and if you keep the gate clean before each load, it will be fine throughout the load. Heck a bunch of guys just shot a feature with it and didnt clean it at all. When I got it back, I barely had discoloration on my white cleaning tools. You have a better chance of getting unnoticeable dust on your digital imager than you do emulsion in between rolls on my Aaton's. Obviously some cameras like the Panavision Gold II, does need a lot of looking after due to the design, but we're not talking about that in this topic.

Well, there is a big difference between being a hired gun and being a filmmaker. Most of the people on this forum or for that matter, people who make any visual media content, are not hired guns. They are people who make content for themselves or for other people as the role of a filmmaker; director, editor, cinematographer, etc. So when I'm talking about working on a documentary, I'm not necessarily talking about making $1500/day for 6 weeks on a doc shoot. I'm talking about making a documentary over 2 - 3 years, shooting once every few months and spending every penny on camera, lensing, film and travel. There is no money for an assistant and I also don't trust anyone with my cameras unless they know them as well as I do, which costs a lot of money. So here you are, your subject is doing something and you shoot until you run out of film. You turn around, take the backpack with the film in it, off your back and quickly air spray the gate, throw another mag on and continue shooting. If your subject has downtime, you're collecting B-Roll, not worrying about the gate. In fact, I generally use the same lens 12-120 zeiss when I shoot doc because it gives me the widest range to shoot with. Most of the time when I'm out shooting, I'm with the subject only. We're out in a public place that's dirty, grimy and horribly dusty as well. I've literally walked miles away from my hotel or vehicle whilst shooting. Wherever the subject goes, I need to go as well and I can't be forced to remove a lens and check a gate. I'd rather not risk getting atmospheric dust and grime onto the backside of the lens OR inside the camera. Swapping film every 10 minutes is difficult enough as it is, checking gate between takes is just overkill. The way work has never failed me and it never will. I setup a workshop in the hotel with my tools and after a day's worth of shooting, remove all the film from the magazines and clean everything. Blow out the mags, clean the pressure plates of the mags and of course, clean the gate/rails and even ground glass. I clean the lens, filters and then load all new film for the next day. During the day, I barely have time to do anything but talk, walk and shoot. Downtime generally consists of eating and sleeping. I wouldn't consider changing magazines downtime as it happens so fast. In terms of zooming in or cropping, with super 16 it's commonplace to zoom the image so the 1.67:1 aspect ratio native image, fits into a 1.78:1 aspect ratio 16:9 HD/UHD frame. In fact, quite a few people go all the way to 1.85:1 aspect ratio 17:9 of 2k and 4k. Reframing is just something you do, it's pretty commonplace even for narrative, where I'm constantly reframing based on directors notes. With documentary, things happen fast and it's rare you have the time to frame perfectly. It's almost better to have a slightly wider frame then you would normally, just to insure when the subject all of a sudden does something, you can still capture it. Sometimes I'll sit down to take a break and the subject will start doing something and I start the camera with it on my lap at first and then try to get a decent frame, but it's not perfect. So I constantly screw with my framing in post, that's just part of editing. The days of capturing something and having it 1:1 in the final release are long past.

Super 16mm is 1.67:1 aspect ratio, so unless you're going to deliver in 1.78:1 (standard HD aspect ratio) with black bars on the side, you're going to need to crop the image no matter what. I always crop my 16mm footage, it's just par for the course since it's not a native aspect ratio. I edit my show and then apply a zoom effect to all shots which is like 1.080 on DaVinci, so not much. That alone will help crop that bowl of dust out. The scratches and dust particles are a different story. You need the paid version of resolve to do scratch and hair removal, but it can do it. This is why cleanliness is the key to shooting on film. Camera gates need to be cleaned after every roll of film, no matter what. I shoot documentaries mostly, so I'm very quickly changing loads, but I always have time to get my container of air out and spray the gate really good before swapping rolls. At the end of each days shoot, I clean the gate really good.

Well yes, you want your final re-framed scan to be higher resolution than your output. With that said, you can achieve this with a 5k scanner, where the frame nearly fills the imager. You may end up with a 4.2k file when it's all said and done being cropped/adjusted and you'll have a tiny bit of room for zooming as well. I was merely saying that 8k as an acquisition and delivery format is silly. I wasn't necessarily thinking about underscanning something by thousands of pixels, to me that seems silly. Good scanners have the optics so you don't need to underscan. If you're using a scanner like the blackmagic which does not have optical path adjustment, that to me doesn't even classify as usable product for anything else but it's native format. Obviously, with formats like super 8, you may not have a choice, but since super 8 is such a myopic part of the industry, it's pretty much irrelevant to discuss. Scanners need to natively work with Super 16mm, Super 35mm and 5 perf 65/70mm. The other formats (8mm, super 8, 9.5mm, etc) need to simply fit within the optical path of those main formats.

Yea it will do 30, 25 and 24p as well, but of course the imager is stuck at 1280x720, so since it has a fixed bit rate recording system, might as well stick with the 100mbps 720p signal. Now that we've figured out all of this, I still don't understand the original question because the HPX2700 doesn't really record a log file. So you wouldn't be using luts to do anything really. Bruce's explanation on the knee adjustment is a great trick, but it's still a Rec709 color space no matter what you do. Getting detail out of both the highlights and the blacks, is going to be difficult, even if you screw with the camera's internal gamma curve. The dynamic range of the imager is still limited, so where you could get a bit more out of it, I doubt it would be worth the effort.

I totally forgot the HPX2700 was a 720p camera. AVC Intra 100 is fine for 720p really, even at 60fps that's not a lot of bandwidth. That's the reason why it works with 10 year old software natively, because it's just not really that tasking.

What kills me is that modern 4k sets look like crap. I have a beautiful color grading monitor that's 10 bit 4k 17:9 and it doesn't matter what media I put on it, darn thing looks great. However, if you take that same media and put it on a normal TV set, the 1080p looks super soft and the 4k looks overly sharp. It's a pretty dramatic difference and they do this purposely so people are like "ohh gosh the 4k is so much better" but reality is, it's just a horrible scaling chipset within the TV. What I keep telling people is that outside of Netflix, Amazon and UHD Bluray, there is no UHD at home. There are only a handful of UHD Bluray's made from 4k sources. Netflix and Amazon "originals" need to be UHD, but that content is only a limited amount of total programming. Standard ol' television is still 1080i and nearly all of the content is finished in 16:9 1080p because they don't want to spend the money on upgrading. Outside of a few sports games per year, there just isn't any UHD broadcast, with very few people even capable of receiving the signal. Where we have seen a shift in the last year to 4k, 6k and 8k sources for theatrical, the vast majority of movies are still being finished in 2k and NOBODY is finishing in 6 or 8k, even IMAX. So I do think the standard Lasergraphics Scanstation is fine for everything. I don't imagine seeing us in an 8k world with film, it's just not going to happen. One could argue that 5 and 15 perf should be scanned at higher resolution then 5k, but which one of us is doing that work? I mean if you're shooting those formats, you can afford to pay someone extra to deal with it. Super 8, 16mm and 35mm are the main formats and that's what would-be owners need to focus on in my opinion. Heck, even vistavision would be nice to have, but 65mm is whole other expense. Ohh and 8k? Yea so stupid.