Tyler Purcell

It's a treat to behold. Brilliant acting, wonderful screenplay, love the score and the cinematography is amazing. There is something very beautiful about the camera movement, lighting and of course, the over all color grade that makes it really spellbinding.

But you have to run the film camera at 25fps to get a clean 25fps signal. Sadly, nobody shoots 25fps, generally it's 24 or some high frame rate for slow mo. So not like the PAL video taps of the past, which had a flicker free 25fps OUTPUT, but the camera could run at any frame rate with no flicker. The rolling bar isn't a huge issue, but getting a camera that does 24 perfectly, is something people will want and it's for sure possible. The HD tap done by AZ Spectrum in Arizona, has a 24fps HD camera that is completely flicker free and is $1700 installed. It also doesn't have any external boxes or controls, it's all internal inside the camera body.

I've asked the powers at be, they haven't re-examined their workflow processes in years. We're in a different world than when film was king and I bet they haven't examined anything in decades. I ask a lot of questions and deal with Kodak corporate on a weekly basis.

I love Amelie

Very cool, so why does it work flicker free at 25 but not 24? Seems like it could be possible without too much hassle.

Yep, they're slammed more than ever. We couldn't even park near the normal places we go. We wound up going way up to newcomb's ranch and a trail up there we haven't been to before, which killed us lol.

Think of it a different way. Consumers don't really effect Kodak's bottom line. The guy who buys 2 rolls of 16mm film for their music video, isn't "helping" Kodak. However, when that filmmaker has bigger budgets and works on bigger projects, they will buy more film and they will buy new because they want the freshest stuff. There is already a somewhat healthy recan business, so people can get film for a discount, just not enough to make a feature or something like that. If Kodak were to sell their over 6 month old stock to recan companies at half price, they would be doing 2 things. One, they wouldn't be destroying OCN, which I think it's a real shame. Two, they'd be diluting the recan's because let's face it, once a roll of film has been opened, all bets are off. So a fresh infusion of new stock that is maybe a year old, but SEALED, would be huge because it would be cheaper than NEW for those people who need 2 rolls for their music video AND Kodak would be making money off film they literally destroy and get .5 cents a foot for. One more thing to note, Kodak doesn't have A LOT of throw away stock. It's not like there is enough for a studio to swoop down and by half a million feet. We're talking about an infusion of maybe 100 rolls total of various stocks and formats. It's all very random stuff, that Kodak sends for destruction. If they could recoup even HALF of the discounted selling price, they should do it. Not directly, but through a 3rd party.

Beautiful day in So Cal for a hike in the Angeles National forest. It's been a lot of this mixed with pictures of the cat in between edits. I've been non-stop working, it's another normal week for me, only at home. I can't wait to actually take a break and go on a shoot or something. Hiking is fun, but gosh is it a lot of work! lol

They're all working actually. Fotokem is closed to the public, but they are finishing Tenent and some other projects.

Answer is no... and Kodak's motion picture division management team retired last year. I think everyone is tired with poor upper management decisions. Kodak manufacturers film, but they treat film as if it's a fragile egg. Their rules destroying film after 6 months of sitting, prohibits them from making the money they should be making. That rule needs to go away and they need to sell that older stock for less money to re-can companies like Reel Good in Hollywood for cost.

Even if by some miracle they were able to sell them for $299, have you ever met the hard core super 8 people? They have no interest in spending $50 on a camera, let alone $299. They also shoot like 5 rolls of a film a year, not enough to even warrant Kodak making super 8 stock to begin with. The reason the Super 8 camera won't be released any time soon is because Kodak and the design firm Logmar are in a heated financial debate. I believe kodak went into the deal with good intentions, but Logmar wasn't reimbursed the about they had initially agreed on. Thus, either Kodak has to start over again with a different design OR they need to pay Logmar and then get the camera made. There are other problems as well, but that's the gist of what's going on.

Ohh interesting, so he was trying to pull a panavision with custom cameras. My friend didn't mention that, he said they were for sale. He said there were only 15 made, but maybe the two that Matthew owned, weren't counted in that.

For $2500 bux or whatever they're going to charge? Yea, no thanks.

LOL 😛