Jump to content

Tyler Purcell

Sustaining Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Tyler Purcell

  1. Oh and the fact it's a porn tape, really kinda makes me feel nobody cared about it. So there is that aspect as well.
  2. Those issues are baked into the tape most likely. Looks like a betacam to VHS transfer gone wrong. The color shift is indicative of low signal on the tape, it can't retain enough frequency to have the color carrier in tact. Very common issues with dupes.
  3. It’s a very basic CRT recorder for still film. I guess one could put an motion picture movement on it, but the software only runs on an old system from the 90s. Not very useful today.
  4. Ok so I now know a bit more about this issue. The motor brushes get ceased over time and cause the motor to not run. The clue was the tone when you start it. It means the motor is not spinning and usually if the electronics are running, then it’s the motor and carbon build up on the brushes. Not difficult to fix, but needs to be done by a pro.
  5. Yes, because you will need to add effects to it up the road and you'll be stuck to using render cache, which is annoying. For realtime playback, you'll need something a bit more than what you got, even for 1080p. Also, who is doing to do the online?
  6. I'm sorry to say, but you will need to invest in a new computer no matter what. Transcoding your entire show and using a proxy file to edit is smart, but renting the facility doesn't seem worth it. Apple is going to be releasing a new M1X Mac mini in November, which will be pretty kickass and burn through those .R3D (red code) like it's nothing. You don't need the "pro" version, it doesn't offer anything important until you're ready to do finishing and need noise reduction and DCI 4k resolution. Otherwise, just cut it in 1080p and when you're ready to export the final, up the resolution to 4k for the final output and you should be good to go. But yes, you will need a better computer no matter what. Resolve will not run well enough with that system you currently have. I struggle on my MUCH newer system with a real GPU.
  7. Correct, if the belt has failed, the motor will not be attached to the moment, thus the movement will not spin via the motor. The camera electronics would know this right away and absolutely sound an alarm. It could be anything really, but the simplest answer, generally is a good place to start investigating. Not suggesting taking the camera apart, getting to that belt is a pain and you will need the proper tools/expertise, but it's the first place I'd look. If it's a bad motor, you'll need to get to the same place anyway. Where it's true, the cost to replace a motor is greater than a belt, the labor (the expensive part) is not much different. You will need to send this camera to a Arri specialist with access to parts.
  8. Yea you gotta cut it with something to get it apart. I took a little saw and sliced off the bottom. It worked ok, but it never really glued back together again very well. I wound up just buying new ones from Du-All camera.
  9. Yea Skyfall did look really great, but for sure not like the other films. It's also one of the best Bond films over-all story/direction wise. I wonder if they made 35mm prints of it, I for sure haven't seen it on film. I bet it looks pretty good on 35mm, bet ya can't tell it was shot digitally. But digital acquisition to digital presentation, yea you can tell it was shot digitally and some scenes are kinda flat. Its unfortunate Spectre was such a dog, very unfortunate. No Time to Die was wrapped before the pandemic, so they may have been one of the last big movies to shoot on film pre-pandemic. I know the reason why the new Mission Impossible was not shot on film was due to the pandemic. I'm not sure what big productions are shooting film right now, but I'm sure there are a few. The world of Indy films, is very busy shooting film actually.
  10. That's fine, there is a belt in the camera between the motor and the mechanics and its probably failed. If the mechanics and the shutter spin with the inching knob, it's just a bad belt. Not a difficult job.
  11. This is probably the best one to buy today. https://www.adorama.com/skl858du.html?gclid=Cj0KCQjwm9yJBhDTARIsABKIcGbutkn4vqaUP4k0yWiaeXQ2bUnJbKmymUQJEvuxZwLH-Y0z1ncfA1kaAkUmEALw_wcB&gclid=Cj0KCQjwm9yJBhDTARIsABKIcGbutkn4vqaUP4k0yWiaeXQ2bUnJbKmymUQJEvuxZwLH-Y0z1ncfA1kaAkUmEALw_wcB&utm_source=adl-gbase-p
  12. Well, you can't really get the plastic housings apart without destroying them. Which is why people generally just buy re-celled batteries which have new plastic housings.
  13. Have you tried the mechanical inching knob to see if the movement turns at all? That gray knob on the side, push it in and turn it the direction of the arrow, see if the movement moves.
  14. Yep! They still use the same process today on any steam operating railroad.
  15. I've wanted to do this exact thing. Shoot exterior days on 50D 16mm and shoot interior nights on 500T pushed a stop. The only catch would be depth of field, you'd really have to push for wide angle lenses on the 35mm stuff to even contemplate having a comparable depth of field. Of course if the bulk of your movie is dark, it may not really mean much to shoot 16mm at all unless shooting the whole thing on 16mm.
  16. Yea to me the difference was a ton of bricks. With Yedlin's post workflow, it would be a lot better today however.
  17. But 16mm and digital just don't mix at all. The differences are HUGE, you can tell right away what's what.
  18. Quite a few movies have bogus titles when they go into production. Mainly as stated above, because they either don't know the final title and/or they simply don't want behind the scenes social media pictures and such, to be attributed to the final name of the product. It's all so stupid, free publicity is too scary sometimes. Imagine if filmmakers were allowed to take BTS pictures with cast and crew on a daily basis and post them? Most big movies make you sign an NDA and if they see you with a camera out taking pictures, will be a bit angry. I remember on a little commercial I did not long ago, I took some pictures for color reference and the client chewed me out. I was like, how the heck do you want me to time the film in the scanner? I can guess or I can get a digital image to help guide me. Some people are overly protective.
  19. Well that's one of the benefits of having your own scanner, I scan to the exact dimensions of the frame in full DCI 4k (4098x2460) which is the 1.66:1 aspect ratio frame. Thus you have a lot of room to re-size and still deliver a 4k finish. To me, the 4k finish is just as important as the delivery itself. So if someone handed me a 4k scan and then I had to crop it down, I'm losing a bunch of resolution, so it would be impossible to do a 4k finish.
  20. I personally would not do 2.40:1 with S16 unless going with the 1.3x anamorphic route. Not impossible to do, but for sure slower lenses that are more expensive. I rarely crop S16 to 1.85:1, normally keeping it at its native frame size. "Jackie" was presented in the 1.66:1 frame size and it's super nice. Super 16 retains around 2.5k worth of information when shooting 50D, but 500T? Nowhere close. You only scan at 4k to insure there is no digital aliasing, not because there is 4k worth of info. Heck with 500T, I don't think there is 4k in 35mm either. Also remember, big movies have huge post budgets. Just because the BluRay looks great, doesn't mean the negative looks that great. S16mm needs a lot of post work to keep it clean. "The Old man and the gun" has a few very "16mm moments" of a few big pieces of dirt that were never removed. Probably stuff that nobody caught, but when you're cropping and henceforth, blowing up a considerable amount, such a small negative, it's really down to nailing everything and honestly, it's not easy. I don't mean to make it sound more difficult than it needs to be or scare you off from shooting film, but DP to DP, as someone who shoots film a lot, it's not easy when you're shooting 500T, open all the time and trying to create this sliver of image within such a huge frame. You'd be losing nearly half of your vertical image, that's A LOT to lose.
  21. Oh small cabin at night is easy, blast an HMI in one window and simply bounce the light around the room with mirrors or reflectors. You can still use 500T, it'll be super cool. Then use practicals to help augment. I agree tho too, lots of practicals exterior night, very good, lots of strong colors. The blacks will disappear for sho.
  22. Watch "Carol" and "MOTHER!" both are shot with very low light, parts of "Carol" are 500T pushed 2 stops. Good movies to check out and understand how much you can get out of 500T. Where I personally don't like that pushed look, I have shot 500T on 16mm in dark situations for years and honestly, it comes out fine. Just need to have SOME light and be a tiny bit more careful about it than with digital. So you may spend a TINY bit more time lighting, but it wouldn't cost anymore to light, just more time consuming to insure you got it right. But, you will shoot less due to the cost elements, so that may help offset the cost of the lighting. I think it would not only be cool to shoot it on 16mm, but also and most importantly, the publicity you receive for shooting on film these days is pretty good. Nobody really cares if you shoot it on an Alexa. But Kodak will push your film pretty hard through their channels AND through the awards season. I think the benefits outweigh the slight negatives of slightly more cost. You should have no problem getting the shutter to sync with a projector. But we've been shooting LCD projectors with film cameras and it works A LOT better.
  23. I probably didn't have it exactly at 2.8, I grabbed the zoom lever and with my finger accidentally moved the IRIS, happened to me many times when the camera was running, but this shot it happened when I was lining up this shot and never noticed it. When I lined the camera up for the next shot, I noticed it was nearly all the way open. I figured I whacked it, running down the street to catch the next thing, but after seeing my dailies, turns out I hit it much earlier. Luckily both shots that were heavily over-exposed, were able to be fixed in the scan. Probably because we had some cloud cover for a bit and it reduced the amount of light just enough to help. This is the before and after. This is what it looked like off my one-light first pass on the scanner. For the record, I did do a slightly darker scan than normal, to try and retain some detail in the highlights. In Resolve, I was able to clean it up and make it work. You can see there is PLENTY of detail in the original image, it was just washed out.
  24. Huh, never saw that. Just tested with a video I posted 6 years ago and has only been watched one time.
  • Create New...