Tyler Purcell

I mean, the video above has footage from it, so feel free to pixel peep.

I tried this before on my original pocket cameras, I never felt it actually did much of anything.

Yea they are for sure as it has power connectors.

I have a feeling it's a far more complicated system than a simple focal reducer (speed booster) with an iris on the output. I could be wrong, but the fact it's a big box that has power plugs, gives me the feeling it works more similar to the S35mm adaptors for CCD cameras in the past, which projected the image which was then re-captured by a set of optics. The reason the tech died, is because it was very soft, but with modern tech, potentially it could be made a lot better. You can think of it more like relay system where the externally mounted lens, focuses onto a ground-glass like device, then another optic shoots that ground glass and it goes out the back as a finished image, with potentially some adjustments along the way. What makes this box unique is the fact it clearly works, something the older S35mm to CCD imager versions were not really good at. The reason why nobody made anything like this for S16mm cameras in the past is quite simple; it's a very limited market and extremely expensive to develop. OFG probably won't sell them, so for them, the investment is purely a rental aspect. They will get their money back by packaging it with camera/lens rentals. I have to say for the record, Mark (The owner) is one of the nicest and smartest guys in the industry, his modifications are outstanding and I believe this new device will be extremely popular. They'll have no problem getting their money back. So yea, it's pretty unique and ground breaking when you think of it being VV field of view onto S16mm.

So ummm... this changes things a bit. It's probably going to lose 1.5 stops, but I think this is game changer. We've seen adaptors like this before, but nothing specifically for S16. "LONG SHOT. The Long Shot is an optical adapter that allows you to use Full Frame/Large Format/Vista Vision lenses, and retain the full field of view, depth of field, and character of those lenses onto the 16mm format. It was designed specifically to use with PL mount 16mm cameras like the ARRI 416, ARRI SR3, AATON Xtera, XTR Prod, and more. You now have 10 times the lens options for 16mm film, as well as the ability to capture a completely new look, no one has ever seen for 16mm. This truly is 16mm reimagined. The Long Shot has swappable mounts, and we have mounts for PL, LPL, Canon EF, Nikon F, Canon FD, BNCR, and more! " https://www.instagram.com/reel/DQ4aFuSCaTU/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

The "Technicolor" look isn't too complicated. When you bi-pack film, and shoot through a coated prism, you lose a lot of light. So Technicolor required an enormous amount of light due to the slower system, something that in today's world, would be completely unheard of. Imagine shooting at roughly 15 ISO on a sound stage at a time period where everyone's face needed to be perfect from all angles due to contractual obligations. Twice in my life, I have attempted to re-create the "Technicolor" look using modern film stocks. One of them was a big commercial for a hotel chain in Florida, we shot on 16mm vision 3 with 8 HMI's, 4 Jokers, 10 1k open face tungsten elements, two dozen fresnels of various sizes from 2k to 150's, to cover a set that was 40x40 at most, it worked! I was blown away by the results, it was the closet thing to that look I have partaken in. After that shoot, I convinced my students (I use to be a professor at a local high school for the arts) to mimic it with a commercial they wanted to do. We got kinda close, we had issues with not having ENOUGH light, but it wasn't too bad. That one was printed tho, so watching the print with colors that just popped out at you on the screen, was great. I also feel set design/art direction played a huge roll in the look, nearly every technicolor film was shot on a sound stage, with occasional location shooting, but even those shots were heavily lit. If you watch the classic technicolor films, you will see this very clearly. The Red Shoes is a great example, it doesn't look anything like the American technicolor films. Even though it's one of my all time favorite movies and by far one of the best shot in the history of cinema, it's not the same look as the American films. Thus, kinda demonstrating that the look of technicolor is a bit more complex than simply 3 strips of dyed film. Eastman color film was also very low ISO when it was released, so it kinda looked like technicolor for a while. It wasn't until the late 1960's when you got 5254 and eventually 5247, that suddenly you didn't need to light quite as much and you saw the "technicolor" look start to fade away as people stopped lighting as fiercely. Obligations with talent changed, films were taking more risks, darker scenes, pushing more realism, new wave movement, etc... these were the driving forces for the new look, nobody wanted to be in the studio anymore, people wanted to be out in real life. So ALL movies changed and so did the look. So where I do feel technicolor does have a "look" in of itself, I do think we are "tricked" into thinking the look is exclusively some sort of specialty camera and film stock, where the bulk of the look is actually what was being shot. You can re-recreate it a bit, maybe not flawlessly, but closely if you use filtration on top of the tricks above. People talk a lot about Kodachrome, but I don't see that ever coming back. I also doubt Kodak will make any different stocks, Ektachrome was way easier to deal with because it wasn't dead for long. We are in a world today where it's pretty easy to mimmic looks on set and through post production, so the necessity of shooting on a certain stock isn't as relevant in today's world.

Affinity by Canva is just another photoshop clone, like Pixelmator (which is what I use). This video above just shows how layers can be manipulated in Resolve as well, which you can also do with PSD files from Photoshop, so nothing new really. Your visual effects shot would be really simple if you shot the raw elements on digital and simply applied the film grain in post. This can be achieved in Resolve using Fusion or Adobe After Effects, which is a bit easier since it's layer based. Then you would simply take the finished digital shot and grain it using Dehancer or one of the other film look tools. I use a combination of tools and a friends DCTL (which is just a fancy term for a preset) to make digital footage look like film. If the shot is fast enough and doesn't have motion, nobody will know the difference.

It's really hard to be disciplined with digital because not only can you literally shoot forever, but you can also review your footage and pixel peep right there on the spot. It's one thing to playback takes on an old CRT monitor from a standard definition video assist feed from a Video 8 deck. It's another to playback a 4k signal from your camera to a monitor and not only verify performance, but also issues with the shot, like maybe slight focus problems or things that you feel can be enhanced in another take. Digital cinema due to the infinitesimal costs, has literally caused productions to become more bloated, because adding another camera is suddenly not a big deal financially. The added crew person and camera rental is nothing compared to the film burning through the camera. In fact, on a feature for instance, you may shoot 10k feet PER CAMERA, per day (roughly $18k per camera, per day), where another digital package; camera, op, puller an AC, probably costs at most $5k per day. This is why on film shoots, there is a discipline that just doesn't exist on digital. Most movies are single camera, more methodically assembled, without the down time of reviewing shots and adding cameras for the sake of more coverage. Now I'm not saying you can't be disciplined on digital, I'm just saying there are no reasons, you're not forced to, so it's WAY easier to just keep shooting.

Where I agree with Jon about 16mm and 2 perf being more of a film look compared to digital cinema, but the compromise of both formats in my opinion isn't worth it. With 16mm, even on the best day, all the way open, those key focal lengths of 9.5mm, 12mm and 16mm, are going to deliver a pretty flat image unless your subject it closer to the camera. This compromise is the same with 2 perf, to get a full body shot for instance, you're shooting from a mile away with a long lens in order to get any separation with the background. An intimate interior dialog scene is going to be faces only to achieve the same separation. So for me, the height of the 3 perf format, allows for longer lenses to be used for wider shots and that allows for a more intimate look whilst retaining separation from the background, which is a more "cinematic" look. The ol' "everything in focus" look, is something you can embrace with 16mm however, but there are more benefits of the larger negative. The biggest one to me is the sharpness and latitude achieved when pushing 500T a stop in scenes where minimal lighting creates realism, where doing the same thing on 16mm, leaves a soft and grainy image that can take the audience out of the picture. I find myself always lighting for 16mm MORE than I would for 35mm for this exact reason, utilizing HMI's and high key sources to use 200T or 250D stocks, in order to remove some of the potential for over kill on the grain. With 3 perf 35mm, a good HDR high res scan, can make up for the stop less light and the drop-off in toe is far less of a problem. I will admit tho, in a world of compromise, 16mm is the ultimate compromise because 3 perf 35mm is around 3x more expensive to shoot per finished minute than 16mm. So the compromise is really a financial issue and if you simply can't afford 35mm for the project, than you literally have no choice but to embrace the compromise of 16mm and make it work. Nothing wrong with that, I have shot WAY more 16mm than 35mm, but I just vastly prefer 3 perf and 4 perf for scripted work. I guess seeing as I'm mostly a documentary filmmaker, 16mm does fit my wheelhouse pretty nicely. I also sold my 35mm cameras because I've only done one 35mm project every 3 - 5 years, so it makes no sense to have a bunch of fancy 35mm cameras sitting around. You can make 16mm look pretty nice tho!

Will you do a record out for her new film? I can't wait to see it! 🙂

Well, to be fair, there are only a hand full of film only theaters left, most of them are reparatory or IMAX. Anything playing new releases is for the most part digital. 4 perf S35mm offers the most options for re-framing in post. It's why I like shooting full frame digital, because sometimes I want to re-frame things in post to get an entirely different feeling from a scene. 3 perf S35mm is still the industry standard today for 35mm outside of anamorphic films. It's the best of both worlds. Giving you a wider frame than 2 perf in a 2.35:1 aspect ratio as well. So for me, there is no better format. Saves on film, allows some re-frame adjustments AND utilizes the full width of the S35mm frame to create a 1.85:1, 2:1 or 2.35:1 image. In today's digital projection world, the largest frame for theatrical AND home video is still 1.75:1, so 1.85:1 is probably the best aspect ratio over-all. 2 perf is not an S35mm format, it's a normal 35mm format unless you're doing a 2.66:1 aspect ratio release, which is umm, a bit rare and unnecessary in a world of people watching things on phones and computers. It's not like cinemas would ever show it matted to that anyway a the big black bars at the top and bottom, give a reduced amount of image for home video. You also want to scan and record back to film, so you lose all of the optical printing nonsense. A 6.5k HDR scan of the negative, 4k finish and 4k record back to internegative, will give you the sharpest, cleanest and best looking image color wise. This is why everyone moved to DI so fast in the early 2000's. Where it's true, a nice contact print from the camera negative is very cool to see, especially if it's S35mm full frame (no soundtrack), anamorphic or large format, it doesn't hold a candle in todays workflow to a good DI. So in the end, 3 perf is the best 35mm format if you're not shooting anamorphic and even if you are, 1.33x anamorphic lenses and 3 perf are a perfect match.

Yep, they're nearly all untalented hacks. Think Musk has any skills outside of being an A hole and having money? The good news is that "server based" AI will soon go away, that's the most evil part of all this. Once it crashes and bursts the bubble, the left over LLM's will be useful for the rest of us for helping with workflow and daily tasks. That to me, is the only real future for AI unless there is a massive shift in the technology, which I don't see happening. They're going after true artificial intelligence whilst handing us some crap tools that are only interesting for the novelty aspects. The cost to actually do all of this will bankrupt most of the big tech companies like nVidia and Open AI.

Weird, I could have sworn they had a website of some kind.

You have to think about what makes the noise when the pulldown is happening. 1) The film sliding on the gate (even though there is a gap) makes noise. 2) The pull down claw going into the perforation hole makes noise. 3) The registration pins going into the perforations make noise. So what are the things you can do to help change those things. 1) You can have as little components touching the film as possible. In the case of the commercial quiet cameras, they generally have a small single spring loaded section of the pressure plate, which is the only thing holding the film against the gate, only in the area where the film is being exposed (aperture region). The film is then sorta held in place by the sides, but with a very small gap (float) which is adjusted via shims in the later model movements like Moviecam and Arricam. 2) You can adjust the pull down so instead of it going straight in and down, it comes in at a slight angle and starts to move down as it goes in. This means, you aren't sliding on the perforation as the film is standing still. This is where the "flick" noise comes from, the act of the pulldown claw going into the hole and the film flexing as a consequence because even the most precise perforation cutters and emulsion, still has a slight deviance that the motion picture camera needs to adjust for. The measurement from the top of the stroke to the bottom of the stroke is called "pitch" and that helps combat slight shrinkage and perforation issues. On 35mm cameras this is a more critical adjustment due to the system using 2 pull-down claws on these cameras. They also changed the shape of the pulldown claw pretty radically, it's rounded off at the tip, so when it first engages with the perforation, it doesn't quite fill it right away, which further helps to reduce noise. Some cameras like the Aaton 35III and Aaton Penelope, both use a duck beak pulldown claw, it's a single flat surface which comes up and into the perforation hole at an angle. It relies on the film being "thrown" down by the movement in order to align the next perforation hole for the pulldown since those cameras don't have registration pins. It's why a camera like the Penelope can be so quiet and so small, it is the smallest quiet 35mm camera ever made. Arri never adopted that pulldown system because they were all about registration and of course, they wanted to own (patent wise) what they sold. 3) Registration pins and overlap are both very interesting. So as the pulldown pulls the film down, the registration pins recess into the movement as depicted in the video. The overlap is where the pulldown claw and the registration pins are both engaged, for a very short period of time. This is like a "handoff" to prevent the film from shifting its position when the pulldown engages. Also remember, the shutter hasn't fully closed when the pulldown claws are starting to engage, so any shift in the film would be a problem. Enter the rounded off registration pins, one filling the perforation vertically and one horizontally. This helps greatly with the sound level on this hand off, especially during the end of the pulldown stroke where the pins are going into place. On the older movement, the pins can really get stuck on the film, but on the newer designs, that's not the case at all. The film has a bit more wiggle room until the pins are more extended. This was a simple fix, but it does reduce the sound considerably. They're both BL's, first one is Arri's older design from the BL1 - 4 (1970s) and the Multilink is from the BL4S (1989). I have lots of videos with the later generation Arricam and Moviecam movements, but I can't see to find them. I must have put them in a folder on my old computer and named them wrong or something. I will dig and post them if I can find them. I've rebuilt many Moviecam movements and they are a real thing of beauty, just a lovely design. Not sure about the patents, I just fix and use cameras. The Arricam's movement is very similar in function to the BL4S one I demonstrated (the 2nd multilink one). There are some minor tweaks to the function tho; more of an angle of the pulldown going into the perf being the main one. I'm honestly not sure if the penetration is less, that's a good question. If the cameras come in and they have issues with noise, it's generally the movement not being square with the gate, so we re-shim the pressure plate on the movement to compensate. This quiets them down right away and gets people back on the shoots. So I haven't really measured the penetration because it's not a necessary thing to really work on unless you dismantle the movement for some reason. Generally owners of Arricam's are rental houses, so the cameras are lubricated all the time, so they're usually in good working order. I've worked on a few ceased Moviecam's tho, mostly Super America's so I have taken apart that movement a few times, but they go back together again as they came apart, there really isn't much of an adjustment available for penetration so I haven't needed to measure it. I actually haven't rebuilt a BL movement, most of the BL work is lubrication, belts, electronics, optics stuff like that. I have way more experience in movement rebuilds with older Arri cameras like the 2C and 3, which always seem to need work and of course the Aaton's which are way easier to rebuild. No problem, when I find those video's/stills I'll post them.

Here is a better explanation, mind my mistakes, I correct myself as I'm off the cuff talking. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/to86uh73xwiw9q17rkk42/Multilink-discussion-movement.mov?rlkey=0dlaze54jtof25hpuelnbz4g8&dl=0