Tyler Purcell

It was Arri's crowning achievement that scanner, very impressive.

Got ya, so if it's theater lighting, then yea you'd be ok. I'd push for 8 stops difference between what you want black and what you want to see. 500T has this uncanny ability to capture blacks WAY under the exposure range, especially in a properly lit scene, where the bleed is not controlled. Getting silky smooth blacks will require a considerable amount of lighting and good control for areas you don't want to see on stage.

Wow that's pretty impressive. I always thought it was a different gate.

So it can run pin registered at 8fps?

Check the original posting date, this is from 2 years ago. I doubt he has anything left.

So as others pointed out C mount lens camera is your best option. The problem is that very few primes under 6mm were made and on the S8 format, 6mm is still not that wide. Most of those wide angle lenses are also total junk, special use security camera stuff and nothing really designed for cinema. You may be able to get away with one, but they'll not look too good. The majority of zoom lenses probably won't close focus enough to be used, so you'll have to go with a prime. Even with Macro, it's hard to nail it with a zoom because you'd be dealing with DOF issues. If you don't mind it being slightly out of focus, maybe? I'm a stickler for focus, so perhaps if you don't mind then a standard Macro lens like the stock lens on a Beaulieu 6008 may work, but at 7mm, it's not very wide either. So it's close focus vs wide angle which will be your problem, along with finding a decent quality lens as well.

Yep just a stills camera for BTS images. This has been common practice on film sets since the advent of SLR cameras. You'll see similar blimped cameras going back to the 60's.

If you mean contrasty, do you mean just big patches of black area? Do you want to see into that area or do you want it to be very contrasty on purpose? Also what format? 8mm, 16mm, 35mm? What stop range can you be in? Can you light or are you using natural lighting only?

I was told it uses a different gate in this mode, is that true? I've never seen one run like that.

The Arri scan's are also hella slow. With 4 flashes per frame, it takes a while to scan. Ya need more than one machine to be in business with an Arriscan. Taking 8hrs to do a 1000ft roll of film, means ya gotta charge a lot.

At least in the states it is. Our cinemas are owned by Chinese conglomerates and they are starting to fail thanks partially to covid.

I've mixed S16 and 3 perf S35mm before and it's actually really nice. 1.66:1 with black bars on the side and then you switch to a wider format for certain scenes. I prefer 2:1 personally and unless you're going theatrical, it's a way better format for televisions. That's part of why I love 3 perf so much. As long as you keep 2.40:1 frame lines, you can always adjust the aspect ratio later if you don't want it as wide. So the benefits of 3 perf are: - Less hair possibility - Reframing - More of the fame is used (roughly 2mm worth) - Easier to stabilize in post if you need it - Cameras are easier to get a hold of, both renting and buying - Arguably different field of view then 2 perf The ONLY benefit of 2 perf is lower cost film. The detractors are: - Hairs can ruin shots - Stuck to 2.40:1 aspect ratio - Cameras are generally more money to rent and nearly impossible to purchase. - Lesser quality image. When you do the math, 2 perf is only 2mm taller than super 16. That's really not a lot. When you're shooting 3 perf and even just matting to 1.85:1, you're roughly 5mm taller than 16mm. That's a HUGE amount. Using Anamorphic lenses on S16mm, is very common to get a 2.40:1 widescreen image and frankly, if money savings is your thing, I just don't know why you wouldn't do that? Shoot 50 ISO stock, low grain on those widescreen shots and differentiate them from the spherical 1.66:1 shots by the stock and lensing.

Personally, I think we've seen the end of the film renaissance for studio production. There was a great run of what, nearly a decade since the Kodak bankruptcy, but covid ENDED cinemas. It's over. They're kaput. As the global inflation leads to major recession, cinemas will take another huge hit and studio's will be reluctant to spend the kind of money they are now on film, since it's an "excess" which is not required for production. Sure, consumers and low-budget projects will still be excited about film, labs will continue to do well for those people, which there is plenty of. Kodak of course, can't make film fast enough right now, they're still delayed on many product shipments due to demand being so high, especially for still film. This won't change, even with the recent price hikes. Everyone is shooting on still film these days, it seems everywhere I go, I run into a random bloke with an old 35mm or medium format camera taking stills. With motion picture, I think that super 8 and 16mm trend, will continue to grow and expand. With the Alexa 35 and whatever full frame version is destine to come out in the next year or two, I think there is far less reason to shoot on film than ever before. The benefits, especially for hollywood, just don't exist. The negative goes into boxes and stored. There are no IP's made, no IN's made, the finished version is 100% digital, so what's the point of shooting on film? The major benefit is having a cut negative that you can create an IP from and a properly stored IP can be scanned in 50 years without any degradation. Good luck finding those digital files in 50 years, they'll be long gone for MOST productions. Ya may find a YCM separation, but even those are not being made as frequently anymore. I feel bad for the CRT recorders, poor tubes! I love film, it's my business, but I have to be pragmatic about it.

I'm wholeheartedly in agreement with David. His advice is what I tell everyone. Don't bother with 2 perf, work on 3 perf so you can change your framing in post and not have to deal with the limitations of the 2 perf format, which there are many. Yes you'll save money but at a cost of things potentially not coming out as well.

When you democratize something, it makes it harder to amortize. Work on film was a requirement in many places due to the low-quality alternatives. Once digital was good enough, the cost difference was clearly swung in digitals favor for everything but perhaps the largest features, with the biggest budgets. It's not much different today honestly.