Tyler Purcell

The print stock used a Kodachrome process, it wasn't "camera" stock tho, it was lower ISO and specially balanced for this positive to positive workflow. Depending on the age, it was kinda rare for 16mm to be used as "source" on educational films until the mid 1960's. Most of the time they still used 35mm since the workflow was easier to deal with. Remember, with 35mm you don't need A/B roll and blind splices. All the editing facilities were also 35mm. So the added cost of 35mm was worth it. You start to see this shift in the 1960's, especially into the 70's when cameras like the CP16R, 16BL, Eclair ACL and eventually Aaton, made shooting on 16mm much lighter, quieter and easier. People then developed editing solutions and by the mid/late 1970's, it was quite fashionable to shoot on positive stocks and do exactly the workflow you're describing. I have dozens of films (original camera elements and prints) from educational and documentary films made this way. The workflow was a lot easier. Color timed prints were pennies per foot back then. Even today, I think $1.25/foot seems awfully high for a timed print if you already have the timing tape. The cost to time was not related to the actual print itself, it was a separate line item. The big thing was soundtrack and we found every single one of the 16mm films we had all the source elements for, had 35mm 3 stripe mag original soundtracks and no optical soundtrack. They would create the soundtrack on the prints from the magnetic 3 stripe on the fly, as you said using electro-printing process. Pretty nifty!

Hit me up info@narrowgaugefilms.com

Nope, the 4k pocket imager was from Sony. The 6k was their first internal designed imager. The original 6k camera came out in fall 2019, so we're talking 5 years ago. The FF variant came out in September 2023, so this all-new imager is less than a year old. Your argument about the imager being old, is literally the reason why David is calling you a troll. The original pocket, the 4k pocket and the 6k pocket, have entirely different imager technologies, they aren't even REMOTELY close outside of being Bayer pattern imagers. The pocket cinema camera design is horrible. Nobody liked it. Not only was there not enough room to put a decent sized battery, but the screen on the back prevented anyone from using it, WITH a decent sized battery. The. body shape wasn't good for anything and everyone complained for years about it, which actually drove DOWN sales. Blackmagic was struggling to sell them, hence the price cuts seemingly every 6 months. Also, HDMI? What planet are you on? Nobody wants HDMI, not a single person on the planet wants it. The display on the side, is because you would need some way to access the touch screen menus. Red do this by having a little tiny display that nobody can even see on the top, really bogus. The solution can't be on the back, where would the battery go? So they threw it on the side and SURE, they could have made it flip out, but that would take up a lot of space and they NEED that space for the cooling system. Clearly a gen 2 camera would probably have a fold out screen as an upgrade, as well as ND filters. Umm, the original camera ergonomically is trash, complete throw away design. Nobody in their right mind would buy one unless they had no choice. This box camera, has a beautiful OLED viewfinder, cheese plate and handle accessories, which are awesome. No need for a cage. Add your favorite bottom/rail kit to it and you're in business for full fledged shoulder shooting, something that is 100% impossible on a pocket, unless you really wish to look like an idiot. Also since the announcement only a few short months ago of the 6k FF camera, BMD have added a feature in Resolve that gets rid of the rolling shutter issue automatically when playing back the footage in your timeline. It's a check box for gosh sakes, so it creates an image that is just like a global shutter camera. The function had been there for stabilization, but they added the function for removing global shutter. This makes the 19MS refresh of the 6k open gate imager, not be a problem anymore. Plus, the double card slots are a HUGE benefit. When shooting open gate 6k, you do gobble up quite a bit of storage. Having it automatically split the clip between two cards, is vital... let me repeat; 100% must have, for anyone serious person doing interviews. I can't tell you how many times I've had to swap cards on Red cameras, but never on double card Sony's. To me, the double card feature is worth the upgrade and another reason I would have never bought that pocket version. The only camera that hits 15 stops of usable dynamic range (without cheating like the Reds do) is the Alexa 35. It's a $80k camera when built. The Venice 2 and Burnao? 13 stops of usable DR. Sony FX9? 12 stops of usable DR. The Red Raptor? 13 stops of usable DR. Arri Alexa mini and OG LF ? 14 stops of usable DR. So where are these magical 15 stops of DR cameras? I would DIE to know what cameras you're talking about, they surely aren't DSLR's either, as all the DSLR's we've tested, are in the 11 - 12 stop range, even with HDR mode on. The brand new Blackmagic 12k, boasts 16 stops, but I bet it has 14 in real life. That would put it better than all of the competitors, but the Arri Alexa 35 for what, 1/8th the cost? The pocket 6k full frame has an advertised 13 stops of dynamic range, the same guys that performed the tests above, wait for it, say it has 12 stops of dynamic range and the only reason they didn't say 13 stops, is because they felt the blacks at 13 stops were too muddy, there is just less definition than expected. Yes, this one pet peeve I agree with. I do think they could have done higher speeds. It does feel like a cop out. I think they chose not to, purposely so they could still sell their pocket inventory. Had they made the new camera much faster in that way, the pocket would be worthless and they have a lot of inventory to sell still. So this first generation of Pyxis camera, will be updated shortly I bet, once they run out of older cameras to sell. It would be easy to drop a faster processor in there. I will have that issue fixed in 10 seconds using my 3d printer and 4 magnets. I bet Blackmagic will have a fix even faster than I can get ahold of one.

Very cool! You're probably the last guy in the US willing to do that workflow! Super cool.

Kodak use to make Kodachrome print stock for this purpose. You'd be able to make positive prints from your positive originals. This isn't necessarily how they'd make theatrical runs however, because you still need to add things like soundtrack and most of the time, that was done on 35mm for theatrical releases. So the positive original, would be blown up to 35mm internegative, which would then be used to strike prints, on low budget films. Theoretically, one could still do that today, but I can't imagine it looking good with Ektachrome. Many people did shoot on reversal stocks, especially VFN (video news film) and other variants of Ektachrome, designed for high speed photography. I've been managing an archive of original Ektachrome camera rolls for over a dozen films that my friend (now passed) made back in the mid to late 70's and into the early 80's. They're all done using the same process of reversal to reversal. The quality of the prints is soft, but the colors are good. I can't imagine there being any real benefits compared to shooting negative and printing that way. Quite a lot of DP's overexpose negative, I for sure like that look as it adds contrast. For printing however, you really wanna keep the exposure consistent. Michael Ballhaus did this on Gangs of New York, shooting the film at the same stop and not doing any color correction and the prints look outstanding. I think it was a lot of work on set to match it all tho. I have also done a lot of printing of my own work and I find it to be hit or miss. If you light it perfectly, it can look really good, but for printing, I think it's imperative you nail the consistency of the exposure. You can't muck around if you want it to have any detail, especially in the blacks.

For the record, here is by far the most difficult thing for film to do. R5 8k (28MP) at 800 ISO and Gold 800 35mm film scanned at 6k (18MP). Sadly, two different lenses. The R5 was a 24-105 RF and the 35mm was a 24-70 EF. However, you can clearly see the R5 is a winner in the res department, but at 5x zoom, the only thing holding back the film is the grain. R5 reference image: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/pozghhox2xrrslw5gmo2k/481-Depot-R5.jpg?rlkey=6ror9pkh89cljccj5zx9jm23q&dl=0 35mm reference image: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/xeynb9mcpcyg0pluw1icu/481-Depot-Gold-800.jpg?rlkey=p1yfdbbeqrbqjfeuzfcvatxo6&dl=0

I'm sorry, you do not have the proper instruments. You would first need a very good and high resolution lens, which could go between two different cameras of the same style. We used Canon EOS-1 camera and Canon R5 camera for our test. Next, you need to use fine grain stocks. I prefer shooting on Ektar 100 for these tests. Even though it's a bit cheating since the digital imager likes to be around 640 iso (native). If you're working on resolution tests, you want the finest grain film stock possible. The actual test would be a chart. We have a digital imager resolution chart that's 8ft wide and 6ft tall. It has resolution lines on it. You measure resolution through MTF and you can also do it visually, but only if your scan is high enough res. Flatbed scanners are the absolute worst way to scan film, 100% useless. First off, 6MP is horrible resolution, you're basically talking about a slightly larger scan than 2k. Second, they do not have accurate focus tools. They have a fixed focus range and they only know how to scan things at the level of the glass. A real film scanner, has focusing tools, which allow you to focus the image properly. The other thing, is that a real scanner will hold the film very flat. This is a critical aspect that flatbeds don't do for the most part. So we have a few methods of scanning. One of them is a 10k drum scanner system. Another is using a DSLR. The fun thing is to actually build a diffused light source and a little system for your DSLR to capture the stills. We have gotten pretty good results using that and our friends Sony 6k (18MP) DSLR. He has a very nice light source. On our initial tests using this method (this is our second attempt to do a resolution comparison test since we've acquired an 8k (28MP) stills camera), using the Sony 6k (18MP) imager to capture the 35mm stills from, we saw the R5 be a bit sharper with slightly more detail using the same 70-200 Canon L series EF mount lens. The film was clearly more noisy/grainy and the lines on the chart lost detail around 3 lines earlier than the R5. This was to be expected however, the R5 is a TRUE 8k imager and our 6k scans are not quite 6k, more like 5600x4000, in that range. So of course, the film scans would simply be softer and they were. The grain was punctuated very much throughout the chart and the main reason we saw no more detail, was due to the grain. Nowhere was the image "soft" like it was lacking resolution. The reason I haven't published this test, is because my end game would be to get the 35mm stills, scanned at 10k on a drum scanner. This is truly the only way to really get the right information we need to prove results. I have just been too busy to deal with one more camera test that nobody will ever really watch. So someday I will get around to it and publish my results, but suffice to say, seeing other peoples test results, the 35mm will never reach the sharpness of the 8k (28MP) R5. However, the R5 will never remotely get close to the color science of film. I have been beyond disappointed in the R5's color science, it's nothing like the older DSLR's like the 5DMKIII, which has one of the best color sciences of any camera I've ever used. The R5 just delivers horrible images from the camera, you have to throw it in Lightroom to get them working, almost like adding a LUT to a Digital Cinema Camera. Where the film scans, I get back and don't have to do anything. In the end, film has a certain quality that digital doesn't appear to even attempt to emulate, like you see in the cinema world. What keeps me shooting film is that aspect AND the longevity of the negatives. Digital seems so temporary, almost like you do all that work and it only takes a hard drive to fail suddenly it's like you never even shot anything. Meanwhile a vault in our storage room, contains tens of thousands of feet of film, that will last 100 years without question. Will anyone care in 100 years? Who knows. Edit: Our 16mm film scans are 4k (12MP), you aren't even working at that resolution.

That restoration print is incredible isn't it? I saw it when it first came out and was blown away.

PEC pads just seem to work the best. I can't imagine velvet working better. Plus, what do you do with the velvet when it's all dirty? Gotta wash or buy more. PEC pads, you can just grab another one out of the container and keep cleaning. I also have been using some cotton wipes recently that work well, still need to do more tests on scratching resistance.

Could be a lot of things sadly. Usually when I see this on an SR, it's something pretty obvious like a crapped out drive belt, but ya never know until ya get it on the bench and start testing it. If you wanted to send it in, drop me a PM and I'll get you the check in sheet for repair. You can use DaVinci Resolve 16.5's "deflicker" feature, to remove this for your editing, so you can finish your film without any issues.

Nobody has interest because current techs, simply have no interest in teaching. The current techs are scared to lose their livelihood, so they vehemently retain their knowledge and then suddenly pass away or retire without a trace. It took me 30 years to find a willing tech and I'm grateful for my time with them. Meanwhile, I offer my services to a local user, for a problem that I can teach the client how to solve for the future and have a good look at the camera to make sure it doesn't have any problem and I get ridiculed and laughed at for the mere suggestion.

Bring it over someday, I'm in VAN NUYS. I can figure it out.

Ok it's not part of RX at all. I really dislike Izotope. They are really a shitty company when it comes to their functionalities. Nowhere does it say the wow and flutter function is not part of RX. It's part of an entirely different suite called "Advanced" which is not present in any marketing advertisements OR even in the videos they produce. If I had a few million to blow, I'd sue the F out of them for misleading customers, but here we are, more money to solve problems. Edit: I don't have $800 dollars to blow, never in a million years. I've probably paid less for my Phoenix license in the last 2 years.

Oh I have the entire Izotope RX suite. I didn't know that was a function, they never made it very clear. Thanks!

Ahh yea, I did look at that, doesn't run on Apple silicon or our new PC Ryzen PC lol So we can't even run it on any system we have according to their documentation. Have you tried it on Apple Silicon or AMD CPU's with Windows 11? If it works, I will for sure start using it because it appears to be a good tool.

What software did you use to fix this?

Me too! I really enjoyed it. Not the biggest fan of the vignette concept, I felt it was distracting. Robbie Ryan is a brilliant person tho and his work stands up on every film, Poor Things is no different. The Petzval lens was such a cool idea, I really absolutely love the look and how it drew attention to the subjects. I felt the use of Ektachrome was a shift that worked well and the shifting to black and white, to keep the audience ever slightly on edge, worked too. I also thought it was cool they pulled out a vista vision camera for the scene where they first breathed life into her. Plot wise, you have to be dedicated for the first hour. I think it takes a while to warm up. Once it's going, on the ship and such, it starts to make sense and the film's trajectory falls more in line with audience expectation. The emotional impact at the end, was something I didn't expect, as the film starts with heavily flawed characters, doing outrages things, but in the end, becomes more of a serious dive into what makes us who we are. It was a clever, round about way to portray such a wildly discussed subject, but it worked nicely, almost with a bowtie at the end. To me, it's his best movie, even though "The Favorite" and "The Lobster" were so damn good. It's heartbreaking picking one of them, I love them so much. I still think "The Favorite" is the most re-watchable and most accessible the masses tho. "Poor Things" has similar issues to "Killing of a "Sacred Deer" in that, you have to be willing to take the emotional hit. Some people, are already on edge too much and they just don't have the energy to deal with it. These are pieces of art for the thinking person, not really entertainment. I just can't wait for his next one "Kinds of Kindness", seems like the same damn cast too! hahah 😛

Our warped gate for the FF kinda works. Not in love with it, but we're getting somewhere. I think our next iteration should be flawless. Just need another super 8 job with warped film to come in so we can test. It's much easier to fix warped 16mm I've found.

FF are working on a new scanner, they aren't really developing new parts for the old one. We do have some parts we've made which help, but they're all prototype. Im always willing to share if you have a scanner.

Yea smell for sure!

SR's are an entirely different beast. Do you have footage you can post?

Yea, you can sometimes get close to telling. What I do if I have random cans, is to cut 5203, 5207, 5213 and 5219 pieces in the dark. Then I cut a section of the mystery can. I will tape the 4 known good pieces flat. Then I quickly turn the light on and compare the emulsion color. They all have a unique look and even the older vision stocks, look very similar. So you can usually tell right away what it is. Fuji has an entirely different look. You can't run the lights for more than a few seconds tho, the film fades FAST in direct light. So you gotta turn the light on, look very fast, match it and turn the light off.

Thats what I thought. Thanks for clarifying.

Aren't movies in Europe shot with 24fps? I'm confused on why nobody has ever had an issue with this in the past.

Very interesting. This is kind of an unusual feature. I assume it's a similar engine to the frame stabilization tricks they use. Thanks for the detailed explanation.