Jump to content

Tyler Purcell

Sustaining Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Tyler Purcell

  • Rank

  • Birthday 07/28/1978

Profile Information

  • Occupation
  • Location
    Los Angeles
  • My Gear
    Arricam ST, 3 perf, Aaton XTR Prod +, Aaton 35III 3 perf, Bolex EBM, K3, Blackmagic Pocket Camera
  • Specialties
    Cinematography (digital cinema and 16/35mm) and post production (DaVinci/Avid/Final Cut Pro)

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • Skype

Recent Profile Visitors

57617 profile views
  1. All ya need to do is insure the color space is setup for "full" instead of "video" when doing a DCP. That's the big mistake people make. Your link on Vimeo looks great, but it's Rec709 instead of DCI-P3. In terms of the grain, that's a consequence of either old film and/or delay on processing. NR will take the edge off, but don't go too far with it.
  2. Even intermediate stock, can't resolve more than 5k. No way can it project more than 2.5k, even when struck directly off the original camera negative. There is too much loss in the projector. This is why the IMAX film format is the ultimate way to project.
  3. I mean if the had an 8k projection system, then we can talk. But the current system is 4k, they use two projectors to do active glasses 3D and to slightly blur the image so you can't see the lines between the pixels. So IMAX went from a 12k system to a 4k system. Come on.
  4. Yea, destroying the whole purpose of the format. If normal cinema cameras can be used for IMAX then it's no longer a special format.
  5. They've tried it all, you can do 5 perf with liquid cooling (2.20:1), but 35mm no way. Too low-resolution.
  6. I mean that's what IMAX use to be, high-budget documentaries distributed by the IMAX corporation only. They of course still make those films, but they've augmented them with normal narrative features. Many movies are shot with Digital IMAX in mind, mostly finished in 4k however that's because the projection systems are only 4k. Considering MOST cineplex IMAX theaters have not upgraded to laser projection, the quality across the board is pretty bad actually. IMAX diluted the brand a decade ago by going hog wild on certifications to make money and now pretty much any theater can get that cert. So people really aren't getting anything unique or different anymore, even the aspect ratio of IMAX digital 1.90:1 is pretty far away from the 1.44:1 of true IMAX. So where I agree, IMAX films need to come back, sadly the only delivery format which makes it a unique experience is 15/70. Also remember large format capturing is unrepresented in ANY digital camera currently, so you can't even get the film IMAX look with digital capture. So what have proposed is actually a mix of film and digital. Using the IMAX film cameras for action scenes and exposition, then switching to an 8k digital format for the dialog. Then doing an 8k record to IMAX film for distribution. Now that would look really good and solve so many problems from the cost of shooting the entire movie on IMAX film to the high quality distribution. Of course most people wouldn't be able to see it on film, but that experience shouldn't be in ALL cinemas. You should need to drive to see a special version.
  7. I've had this happen before with Fotokem recently on two films, one 16 and 35mm. I believe in my case because I had them build the reels in-lab, one of their rollers damaged the film. Sadly they've been closed since Covid and I haven't been able to get in touch with them to figure out why. I just hope other people haven't had the same issues. The Arri Scan has a great infrared filter, which can help remove scratches like this. Many other scanners don't, so you'll see them more often. You'll know if its the camera or not, if the scratch is on ALL the rolls you shot (different magazines) or just one.
  8. The drum scanner will be the best for sure. The other thing to try is an HDR scanner like the Arri Scan HDR. That may help considerably.
  9. I just attended my first public screening since Covid at a little theater in the middle of nowhere and it was empty. I don't know if people are ready yet, but people are also busy worrying about other things like finances. It's for sure a "soft" launch and I bet once theaters open nation wide, they'll start advertising more for the new movies. That will help drive the regular public back. I think the cineplex is doomed tho...
  10. They had finished the film, but due to covid, they decided to re-cut. They simply ran out of time. So they decided to do a record-out and meet the September deadline. They use a CRT recorder, which scan lines and it works good. They can be high resolution, I believe the IMAX CRT recorder can be 8k but the 5 perf one I believe is only 4k. I'm not 100% on that, but it makes sense. I mean honestly a 4k record on 70mm is not much lower resolution then 5 perf done a photochemical way. The IMAX version MAYBE photochemical. Not sure, hasn't seen it yet.
  11. I saw the print yesterday and I thought it looked outstanding. It had a lot of dynamic range, no grading issues what so ever, crisp image and not a scratch or single piece of dirt outside of the 2 frames around the splices. To me, seeing film projected to rival digital is what I like to see. They played trailers digitally at this particular theater and when they turned the digital projector off, the screen went black and I mean straight black. Then the WB logo came up in the black and I was like, holy shit that's some deep blacks. Normally with film projection, you see a rise in brightness when the film comes on, but not at this theater. I attributed that to being a less powerful lamp housing than I normally see, as it wasn't one of my regular 70mm theater. I'll say this much, the shitty digital screening I first saw the movie in, was nothing compared to the film version. My screening however was ruined by a horrible low-end 3D screen, which had a big bright spot in the middle which altered the color balance so much, I had to wear my sunglasses to bring it back to normalcy. It was infuriating, but I've seen it before at other film screenings at theaters which don't have the proper screen for film projection. It was annoying, but the sides of the screen were perfect, so I know the print was fine and I know that it DID look good. I was also sadly dismayed it was a CRT recorded image, rather than a photochemical finish. I didn't really notice anything wrong, but Nolan is such a photochemical finish guy that I was sad it was a recording. I can't wait to see it at a real theater, hopefully when things re-open.
  12. I agree, with a normal scan, you won't get anywhere near the full dynamic range of motion picture film. The HDR scans I've done are eye opening.
  13. Ah a theater popped up! It's down in San Diego. Reading Grossmont, they are the San Diego 70mm theater I guess. Since San Diego is open, I guess they're starting the screenings Thursday! We'll be headed down Saturday afternoon and watch it on film. Sadly, I was told today, the prints were all done digitally. 😞
  14. Hey Derick, If nobody bites, I buy old stock for .10/ft and use it for my film students. We shoot a lot of 16mm and are always looking for stock to play with. I'd be interested in the EXR 50D and 200T stock. thanks!
  • Create New...