Tyler Purcell

I think it's a one man band.

Outstanding work! Congrats on the accolades, the project deserves it!

This is a common issue with K3's, the pressure plate is not strong and neither are the clamps that hold the film onto the single sprocket. It's a cheap design, that can work, but for people who haven't used K3's before, can throw them off. What I do to K3's is remove the loop formers, tweak the clamps and make the spring tension on the pressure plate greater. Those 3 things help the camera perform better.

Can you send us video of the scratch in motion? Can you send me a picture of your gate? Also, does the scratch change between rolls?

Rennie is a one man band and very busy. It's hard to write e-mails back and forth. It's far easier to get on the phone for a few min when someone can be working at the same time they're talking.

Every editor I know, is a frustrated filmmaker.

Thanks for everyones help. I just wanted to get back to ya'll and tell ya what I found out. Turns out a lot of people are having the same issues and it's not related to the camera per say. I was able to get the stabilizer in Resolve to clean up SOME of the anomalies, but it's still not where I want it to be. I'm going to try a few things you guys recommended on our next shoot. Here is a sample of PART of our first shoot, corrected in Resolve.

I agree with Heikki, the lens may not be as sharp because it doesn't need to be for FF imagers due to using a larger image circle.

Ya know I've worked on a few of both and I honestly think the mags are entirely different. The SL mags are more similar (not the same) as the arricam mags. The Super America, Compact, Compact II mags are all similar. The SL is kinda where the arricam's started. The SLMKII of course being (outside the viewfinder and housing) nearly identical to the Arricam LT.

Of course film can, but where are you seeing that wide gamut? Honestly, have you seen it? Can you quantify it out outside of reading some numbers on a file? It's nice to know something can be better, but does anyone care?

Andree Martin Camera, he's got some for sure.

That's what I'm also very confused. I guess his idea is that because digital cinema imagers can deliver a wider gamut, why can't film scanners.

I'm confused. How are you testing the output gamut of a file without knowing the input value? Are you just testing on white light? Any tool showing you gamut, would show you "actual" image gamut, which is always compressed coming from the scanner anyway. You can't convert a gamut from one type to another, that doesn't ever work. Theoretically you'd "add back" the missing gamut information in post when you work in an expanded range. Where I understand your reservations about this process compared to shooting on a DSLR in RAW, those imagers and imaging systems are very different than a film scanning system. You run out of dynamic range super fast on a DSLR. Film has WAY more dynamic range. So to compensate for this, we compress the film information and then expand it in post. So it shouldn't matter what the compressed gamut is on the DPX files. Once expanded it should fill in the missing data.

Why would you think it's a Rec 709 color space? What makes you assume that?

Dang! Yea it really sux. I wonder who owns the film