Tyler Purcell

With tiny budgets, you shoot with an iphone, that's what Steven Soderbergh is doing. I've built A LOT of non-union low-cost budgets, many of them actuated and honestly, film ALWAYS costs more than digital, period. The numbers range from $25k - $90k more depending on what film format you're using. Tacking on another $100k to your budget when your entire budget is $250k, is not possible. Tacking on another $100k to your budget, when your entire budget is $5M is way more possible. It all comes down to how much money you're willing to spend.

I think what people are forgetting about is the budget and working on union shows. Rental houses charge out the ass for modern equipment on those big shows. Where for older stuff, someone like Panavision will give a "free" camera body or two, if they rent lenses that aren't rented for digital, which at Panvision they have lots of lenses that digital people don't like. So they probably got two quotes from Panavision and the digital was more than the film by an astronomical number. By the way, this is something that's happened to me with Panavision as well, so I get it. In terms of the crew, DIT"s on non-union shows are $500/day. Some of the Union guys I know charge $1000 labor and $500 for their kit PER DAY. Then you also need a video village wrangling team, which is not as necessary on a film show. So cost savings in labor on a union show, could be around $2-3k a day easily. Then you deal with storage and this is a big deal. Everyone inflates the pricing of hard drives, it's just what they do. So a DIT will come in and charge 2x what an actual hard drive costs. They'll also need A LOT of drives on location. Since film is processed and then stored at the lab or post house directly, there really is no need for shuttle drives, which again for you and me is a very little cost difference, but for a huge show where everyone is charging exorbitant amounts of money for everything, I can see there being a pretty heavy cost difference. Finally, you actually work faster with film. I don't care how disciplined you are, with digital nothing stops you from rolling the camera all the time. With film, you need to be far more disciplined because you will waste time on every reload. So you're constantly working to make sure you've rehearsed and are getting what you need right away, rather than shooting until you run out of cards or time. On smaller films, this discipline already exists. On big union shows, it does not. This alone, saves the production a lot of money and can reduce schedule time. Yes the cost of film is expensive, but Kodak does offer pretty incredible deals to a studio shooting a feature. When Mindel calls up his kodak rep, they aren't charging him full boat. Where Fotokem may charge full boat for their services, reality is that most films do a telecine anyway, which is cheap. They'll then only scan the scenes from the final cut to scan, which saves a great deal of money. Post winds up being a lot cheaper as well because the images coming off the scanner are pretty damn perfect already, with wide dynamic range and generally higher resolution than normal digital capture. Yes, we all know on low budget shows, we can get deals on all of this equipment and the cost to shoot film would be much greater. However, even my math shows the difference between shooting on an Arri Alexa in 4k vs shooting on 3 perf 35mm, with a 4k finish is around $68,000 USD with a 10:1 ratio and 90 minute movie. $68,000 is not a lot of money, in fact it's nearly a no-brainer to shoot on film when the costs are that inconsequential. Sure on a big show they may shoot 30:1, which would bring the cost up to a little bit north of $200k. However, that's nothing for a $30M production.

Ohh and don't forget, Cloverfield Paradox is Netflix produced, 35mm isn't even on their list of appropriate cameras. 😛

As a professional editor, the way it normally works is that we create a cut on our own first without the Director. Usually it's just an assembly of the script, generally super long as well. Than the director comes in and gives his feedback on the cut, usually it's swapping performances rather then length cuts at first. Once the director and I have done a few passes together, we show the producers a cut. It's generally here where the producers, the director and the editor sit down and go over the cut. It takes a while, generally a few days of conference calls and/or notes. I make a lot of suggestions on the cut at this point and the director and I will mull about with the producer's notes, doing some, not doing others. We try everything, but not much winds up in the final piece. Once the producers, director and editor are happy with the show, we will send it out for a larger group screening. The best feedback comes from the group screenings, where the writers, cinematographer, executive producers and cast get to see it and give notes. If we have time to bring everyone together, we will do a round table discussion after and hash out some ideas on what people like or don't like. I'm sad that some people don't think this discussion is worth it, but I always try to push for it because getting feedback is so important. I work very closely with my DP's on the cut, I believe their input as being very valuable. I also have a good relationship with the DP's of the projects I edit. I've made a lot of changes to cuts based on DP's notes, especially with framing or takes that they did something special I may have not noticed. It's hard when you have 1800 shots in your final cut, to get every single little fancy move the DP's made. Generally the final cut of a film is a conglomerate of notes, forced upon the editor and director by the producers. We fight to get certain things in the film and the producers generally have the final say in a lot of ways It's our job to convince them XYZ is important and it's all down to how good of a negotiator you are. From my perspective as an editor, I like cutting shit because I think telling a story properly is far more important than ego. So it gets kinda disappointing when producers want stuff in the film that sucks or kill stuff that's great. Yes some directors have done "directors cuts" of their films, but most of the time it's because of rating or the films just being too long for theatrical. Every minute under 72 minutes or over 120 minutes, is a big deal. They'll wanna extend short films and decrease the length of long films. It's truly sad that's what dictates what we see, but hey that's how things work. Many directors do get final cut and force their producers and distributors to play what they have. That's why you don't see a director's cut of a Christopher Nolan film, because he can do anything he wants.

I use wheelchairs all the time, with hand held camera. Steadicam + wheelchair is better, but you can get some great shots with just the chair. The biggest problem is that you need something to stabilize the camera as even on very smooth surfaces, it's still tricky. Sometimes if the ground is super smooth, you can put your feet up on the chair and hold the camera tight. Other times it works better to just shoulder the camera. Either way, it does work really great.

They will not resolve the problem the OP has, no. However, lines and scratches are easy, if the image moves at all. If it doesn't, then it's more difficult, but still very doable.

By far the easiest solution. I've had pretty good luck with painting it out in After Effects. The new DaVinci does have some great tools that should solve the problem as well, but I haven't experimented yet.

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.