Tyler Purcell

6 hours ago, Greg Milneck said:

If you are referring to "and for the next 100 years Arri would be a dominant player in the film industry"...thats my personal opinion as a working DP in the US...you may disagree, but as a young operator in the 80's and a DP in the 90's and beyond, I worked with Arri gear more than any other. (AKS, lenses, cameras, etc)..and even today as a rental  house owner the most in demand cameras are Arri.

I think what Simon was saying is that Arri didn't dominate for 100 years. In fact, their 35mm feature film camera business didn't really take off globally until the end of the 80's and into the 90's. It also only ran through 2012 or so before they came out with digital cameras and shifted away from film. I think you may underestimate the local rental houses and what they rented vs what other people rented. Plus many DP's preferred certain systems and if you weren't working with someone shooting with one of those systems, then how would you know?  

Historically tho, prior to the 535, 453 and Arricam's release, there were actually very few 35mm movies shot entirely with Arri cameras. I think you'd find it to be in the hundreds globally. The acquisition of Moviecam and the money they put into making the 535, 435 and Arricam systems, were really what got them the dominance.  Arri was not doing well financially during the late 90's and they needed to develop a new camera fast, they spent a lot of time revamping Bauers next generation moviecam and turned it into the Arricam. The industry was enamored with the Arricam, Arri scan and Arri laser. The tech worked, it was a DI workflow that everyone wanted and it was BY FAR the most successful end to end system in the world. Those three tools were in every country globally from India and Australia to New Zealand and all over Europe and the United States. Like a web, they basically fully-dominated for what, a decade before film died? Then like a flash, they dumped film and were ready to become the new leaders in digital cinematography. However, their dominance in the professional industry kept going. 

I do agree, the post 2000 dominance of Arri is legitimate, but it's absolutely not a reflection of the years prior with 35mm filmmaking. When you look back, the most dominant system(s) were made my Mitchell. The BNC, BNCR, Technicolor, the 65mm systems, these are all Mitchell designs. Then when Panavision took over, their dominance soared. From 1930 through 1980 (50 years), the industry still relied heavily on Mitchel systems in the form of Panavision. Yes it's true, many films that shot with Panavision cameras did have a 2C handy for those MOS shots, so it's not like the camera system wasn't used, it absolutely was. 

Now, maybe you're thinking 16mm? Arri's 16mm cameras were far more widely used, that's for sure. Even the 16BL and S/M were very well used systems due to TV and such. However, the SR simply dominated the industry, it was a checkmate at the time. Even guys like Aaton couldn't really compete until they got their bugs out and made the XTR Prod/Xtera. By then there were thousands of SR's on the market, so it was a rough business to be in. The 416 is still to this day the most dominant 16mm camera available. So if you're referring to 16mm, I'd say the dominance was a lot longer than it was with 35mm, but nowhere near 100 years. 

Howdy! We are finally ready to release our 2nd generation HD video assist for Aaton Xtera, XTR Prod/Plus with later generation optics and 35-3 35mm cameras.

Our flicker free design, utilizes the latest generation 600 series Sony EXMOR imager with advanced noise canceling and automatic gain control.  We have been testing this camera system for nearly a year now and our 2nd generation will be the first available to the public through our new Narrow Gauge Films website (to launch later in July). We are posting this now because two of our recent installs of the 2nd generation tap have gained quite a following on social media and figured it was time to announce our prices and a little video about the quality.

https://www.instagram.com/p/DLvqeKSyJle/

 It's a flicker free HD tap system that basically slots into the original fittings. There is a bit of soldering work and some slight modifications to an interconnect board, but the camera is not altered otherwise. This means, the system can easily go back to standard def if need be. It also doesn't add boards like other companies, which can cause camera failures down the road. We also use an all-metal design, which means there are no 3D printed parts to fail. It means removing the camera for service is incredibly easy, it works just like the OEM system, which is very much unlike our competitors. 

Our flicker free tap is the only one like it out in the wild. It has a grain-free auto-gain system, utilizing state of the art noise reduction to clean up the image. This means, when the lens is all the way closed, even in super dark environments, you still get a sharp and bright image. It compensates instantly for iris adjustments as well. Also, because the flicker free system is actually automatically compensating for ANY flicker, it will remove flicker from other high speed modes. 

This is a little video explaining the tap and it running: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/0wamueeokwbdz3hq3zymu/Video-Tap-close-up-large.MOV?rlkey=xkjf5fyobfi163ctj53a2cx96&st=jl0f2zh1&dl=0

It's $2999 for Xtera, $2499 for 35III and $1799 for XTR Prod/Plus with the later generation side optics. The 35III variant we will be demoing shortly and it more money because it has an all-aluminum housing and is pretty much plug and play. 

Turn around time is very quick, it takes a week to get the parts, so if you message us to get one installed, we can order the parts the moment you ship your camera and by the time it's arrived, the parts will have as well and we can install right away. The 35III variant can be made ahead of time however, so it may actually be a quicker installation. 

We won't be doing any other Aaton camera system but those 3 sadly. We have tried to fit our components into other cameras, but because the boards are an unusual size and thickness, they just don't work anywhere else but those cameras. We will be doing Moviecam's, Arricam's, 416's and SR3's shortly. We have the optical path and such ready, but we need someone to give us a camera for a while to develop it properly. 

Contact us at info@narrowgaugefilms.com or visit us online at www.narrowgaugefilms.com for more information launching mid/end July 2025. 

You really deserve it bro, what a career! So happy for you, exciting times ahead! 

Sadly there really isn't any way to do what you're trying to do using the methods listed above. 

1) Cinestill is old film, it will have a layer of fog that will not be present on the new Kodak Vision 3 16mm film you'll use for your shoot. Thus, making it entirely inaccurate in terms of grain. 
2) Kodak has removed the Remjet anti halation coating and most likely anything you shoot with Kodak film in the future, will be this new stock. Cinestill does not have this new material. It will react entirely different being pushed/pulled as the new AHU layer is actually made of black silver, which needs to be removed during the processing process. Remjet is actually removed prior to processing. Because the black silver is processed out, whatever remains will have a very different look than simply removing a layer physically. 
3) 35mm stills are vistavision size 8 perforations. Stills lenses are designed to cover that frame size, they are not designed to give you any indication of sharpness in a center crop. I have seen this with my digital cinema cameras as well. When using actual super 16 glass, you will have an entirely different look, it will be way sharper. Also, the contrast of the lenses is very important as well, you can't just use still lenses and then expect the Superspeeds to look the same, because they won't. Yes, Zeiss does make stills lenses, but they don't have the same look as the Superspeeds. 

Sadly you need to perform controlled tests on 16mm to really get the look and feel of what you're after. I would also confirm with Kodak which film you'll be getting, the older remjet film or the new AHU coating film. You will need to test with whatever film you're shooting with. The AHU film has not replaced the Remjet film yet, but it's coming fast. 

On 7/2/2025 at 11:06 PM, Sam Risley said:

Luis and Tyler, have you guys ever used the super 35 Ultra Primes on a 16mm camera? They seem to be much easier to get hold of. If so did you have any issues?

I only used the 16mm set of Ultra Primes, I haven't used the 35mm set. The main reason is simply wider angle shots. It's nice to have a fast S16mm designed 8mm lens for instance. 

You aren't going to have less grain by over exposing because it increases the contrast. The grain structure doesn't change if you over expose. 

So 50D would be the way to go and yes, if you wanted to over expose a tiny bit like a stop, you could retain better middle grey and black details, but you won't change the grain structure. 

Each of the Vision film stocks, is an entirely different emulsion, they have different looks as well. Many people prefer shooting 200T over box speed, simply because they prefer the look and it over exposes nicely and delivers a smoother grain structure similar to 50D than 250D. 

To truly change the grain structure, you need to shoot 35mm. 

The 16mm Ultra primes are very good. I've had mixed results myself, but a lot of the material I've scanned that was the sharpest was with the ultra primes, so they are clearly the best, and I'm fairly certain they fit the SR's no problem. The for sure fit the SR3. 

Yea I do think it's the filter as well, it's also underexposed, which is why you have splotches of no data. 

22 hours ago, Scott Bullock said:

Just thinking aloud here and didn't read every post but I wonder if hot bluing the pressure plates would work--like manufacturers do with firearms. I'm almost positive chrome can be blued in this manner. It may eventually wear down (maybe not?) like you see with older guns that have been cleaned, used and handled for years, but it's not adding a layer to the surface like paint or ceramic. Basically, it's oxidyzing the metal. Keep it cleaned and lubricated when not in use, re-blue as necessary. Just a thought.  

Yea blue chrome is inherently reflective and because it's blue, you'd get an unusual tint in the halation. 

3 hours ago, Scott Pickering said:

Any recommendations for anamorphic lenses with 1.6x squeeze that won't break the bank?

Sadly, there really isn't much that's either expensive OR slow. You basically pay for quality. This is why I don't much care for anamorphic and simply go spherical on everything. 

10 hours ago, Scott Pickering said:

Sirui Venus T2.9 1.6x 5-Lens Kit with Hard Case (35/50/75/100/150mm, L-Mount)

The Siruri anamorphic lenses are ok, but they're not sharp. I've shot with them before, they are very nice, well made and low distortion, but when looking at the finished results (final footage) we see not much resolution. Clearly nowhere near as sharp as our CP2's. 

I also find the T2.9 is a bit slow. The blackmagic cameras need a lot of light, gotta think of them as fixed 800 ISO cameras, so you need fast lenses for dark scenes. You do not want to increase the ISO to compensate. 

15 hours ago, Robert Houllahan said:

I am working on having two gates for it right now a Std 16mm which is what we have been recording with and I got a whole Mitchell 16mm movement with the gate I am having EDM cut to S16mm so I can offer both Std 16mm or Super 16

Sweet! Very exciting! When you got that done, let me know plz. I would love to test it. 

Thanks for the test Robert, cool stuff! 

I was gonna ask, is your 4k 16mm recorder S16 or still N16? 

10 hours ago, Scott Pickering said:

Tyler. You've seen lots of work in 65/70mm. If shooting in 12k and downrezzing in post to 8k, what lenses are going to give you the look in terms of rez as a 5/70 print?

Well 5 perf 70mm doesn't have nearly the resolution of the 12k blackmagic camera, not even close. This is due to issues with film in general, the float of the film, the slight fluctuations with flange. The scanning process and film itself, where it does retain a lot of information, can't really present that information to the user in a perfect way. The 12k imager, in open gate 12k mode, is probably around 8,000 lines of resolution, which is really good. Are you going to find lenses that can reproduce that? Probably not, in fact I'd say it's not even worth doing. The reason why you shoot in 12k, it's because you want 8000 lines, it's because you want to have no aliasing, the edges on objects are flawless. Hair for instance, you can actually see detail, it's shocking. But the imager is still not very sharp, it's not like an overly sharpened Sony camera for instance. Na, the imager is pretty neutral honestly. I will be posting some samples soon, but I need to shoot more material. 

I really like the DZO Arles, I think they will resolve PLENTY of resolution honestly. I haven't bought them, but I've tried them and I was blown away. I made a mistake buying CP2 super speeds, wrong lenses for the camera. They aren't pretty, they just work. 

3 hours ago, Scott Pickering said:

I'd have to do a sole proprietorship as we don't have LLCs in Canada.

Oh interesting, so sole proprietorship is similar to LLC then. 

1 hour ago, Scott Pickering said:

Thanks for your thoughts guys. Good info too Tyler. Looking at the Cine 12K, the body itself is only 3 grand more here in Canada, but its the accessories you have to buy to use the Cine 12K which is killing it for me. And its only in EF or PL mount. The batteries on the Pyxis are fairly common (BP-U) and cheap enough, and the chargers arent much. I already have some CF-E B cards that I use on my Fuji camera. Lenses are easy to find when using L mount (many adapters). When going the Cine, the prices of the needed accessories ramps up the price to basically double. The Pyxis is more budget friendly. Hard to say what camera they'll put out in a couple years time.

You probably wanna be in PL mount honestly, I think you'll find dealing with L mount lenses to be a real problem. I've tried in vain to use still format EF lenses (same problem as L lenses) and they just aren't workable in my opinion. So if you're gonna be doing cine primes anyway, might as well go with PL, there really isn't that much of a cost difference and you're probably more likely going to get full frame coverage whatever you get, rather than stuck to S35 or even MFT. 

The BP-U batteries are common, but the one for the Pyxis is special due to the power requirements. Once the camera comes out, there are going to be a lot of very unhappy customers until they figure this out. Your ol' batteries will not run the camera for more than a few minutes, probably less than 20. Core SWX has worked with Blackmagic to create a special battery for the Pyxis called the Nano U-98X. So I have 98, 150 and 360 batteries for my Cine and the 98's last like an hour or so with all the displays on, so the BP-U battery may be the same, so not a long time. Plus you can't run a plate very easily, it blocks the card ports, which makes it very troublesome. The whole thing is a poor design for cinema where you need power for wireless, power for monitors, power for FIZ and want the camera to sit on for the day. This is why we bought the 360 batteries, those things will run half a day no problem. 

In terms of cards, the only ones that work are the OWC Ultra, Angelbird PRO SE and Lexar Professional Diamond (all 4.0 cards), no other cards that I know of actually work. They'll over heat and drop frames. Remember, the bandwidth is WAY higher than any other camera you can use those cards with. 

1 hour ago, Scott Pickering said:

If you were using the 12K camera, to get the best 8K image, would you let the camera downrez to 8K right off the bat, or is it better to downrez in Resolve? How soft is the sensor really? Any links to tests I could look at?

I'd shoot 12:1 compression in 12k 1.85:1, edit in 2k or 4k and then upses at the end to 8k. All you do is change the sequence settings to 8k and it automatically makes it all 8k. 

It's softer than an Alexa which is very strange, but that's a good thing. I haven't done any camera tests yet, we've been shooting some commercial stuff and I don't have any footage, been handing it over to the clients. I have some stuff we shot at Cinegear and some stuff we shot at an open house that's just unlit b-roll, but we'll be doing a real shoot shortly, just need to get my ducks in a row and get it done. I'll have something to show of it next month for sure. 

1 hour ago, Scott Pickering said:

Another question I'll ask which has nothing to do with gear. When paying your crew/ actors, what is the recommended way of giving them payment, if this is really a low budget film? This might be out of pocket for this. Or do you absolutely recommend registering a company for the 1 year it would be operating? It wouldnt be incorporated of course. This whole feature may be a one off, as no future plans to make more films down the road, unless somehow this first film does make money. But it may not make any. Its just a labor of love to do this project. 

I wouldn't worry about the LLC unless you think the film will get picked up and be sold. You NEED an LLC for liability reasons if that's the case. If you're doing it for fun and don't care if anyone sees it, then no bother. But be very careful, because if you make something really good and you don't have that LLC, if you don't have all the right paperwork and don't do E&O, you may get into some trouble IF the film does well. If it's just for fun, no sweat, don't bother. 

Hey Scott, 

So we have a 12k URSA Cine (similar camera) and it's a pretty good camera. I have an OG 12k URSA as well that we use as a "B" cam and will probably wind up with a Pyxis 12k eventually up the road, seeing as I feel they'll have stocking problems for a while. I'll just wait for one to show up used. 

The 12k imagers aren't 12k worth of resolution, they are more like 8k at full res. This is because they have white pixels which create the luminance channel and those pixels add a bit of complication to the actual theoretical resolution of the camera. Having done a shit ton of tests on our original 12k, I have determined that it's closer to 8k actually, but most likely less than 8k rather than more. This test was done semi-scientifically using high resolution lenses between multiple 8k cameras and the URSA. Sadly, those lenses are not available for me to test the 12k Cine with, so I don't have numbers, but suffice to say, it's the same pixel structure on the full frame version. 

The 12k imager shot in 12k and reduced to 8k works great. I've tested this workflow and it's fine. Just edit in 1080p or 4k and upses at the end in Resolve, you'll be happy. 12:1 is the happiest medium for compression in 12k. If you have to use 9k mode (S35 due to lenses), I would reduce the compression as it makes an inverse effect on aliasing and you may see some aliasing. I have done lots of tests on various formats, I have found the higher the res, the more you can deal with the noise floor AND the higher the compression can be. Even 18:1 is not bad for things like interviews, you'll never see it in 12k. 

In terms of lenses, the last thing I'd ever do is shoot with sharp glass. I would use something like the DZO Arles VV lenses. This is what I will be buying myself in the very near future, mixed with a vintage S35mm zoom lens like a Angeneuix 25-250, HP or HR. This is really to me the way these very sharp imagers need to be shot, so help compensate for how damned crisp they are. You absolutely want soft lenses and you absolutely want manual lenses. The 12k imagers may have auto focus some day, but not this year I was told. They may not offer it at all and NEVER on PL mount. With PL lenses, you would simply run the DJI focus pro for AF or Tilta Nucleus for manual. I prefer the Nucleus because I love the handles, they fit nicely with the URSA body for shoulder mount work and the new MKII controller is great for an assistant. 

I went with the CINE over the Piyxis for 5 reasons: 1) Imager refresh rate on the Pyxis is much slower. Readout on the CINE can be lower than 10ms by adjusting the 12k frame size to 1.85:1, but on the Pyxis, it's 19ms in that same mode. 2) The Pyxis doesn't have the higher frame rates in high res mode, only lower resolutions. 3) The Pyxis does not have interchangeable lens mounts and probably won't. 4) The Pyxis uses an all new battery system, it does not work with standard Sony batteries. So suddenly you're investing in chargers, batteries, the whole 9 yards. 5) Internal ND was a flat-out must for me, no way was I going to invest in an "A" camera without it. A B camera, ok not a big deal, but A camera SHOULD have it. 

Plus and I know this may sound silly, but that big assistant display on the Cine is absolutely a game changer. Thus far on every shoot I've worked on with it, the directors flat out love the display. They want to be to the side of the camera, not looking over the operators shoulder, so now you don't need to have another monitor, you literally have one already on the camera. It's such a great idea and I just flat out love it. I have the EVF as well, which is excellent, it's already considered the best EVF for that price range ever made. They come with the extension for rear operation AND multiple cables so if you damage one, your kit will have more. 

Having shot video with both the Pyxis and the Cine 12k, I have to say I vastly prefer the Cine over the Pyxis in day to day use. Where the Pyxis isn't bad, I feel the issues I mentioned above, kinda relegate it to a B or C camera. The fact the touch display is not coverable and does not fold out, makes the camera an accessory hog. You literally can't use it without attaching an EVF or monitor. Now you've used up all your attachment ports on the body, so you're buying cheese plate to attach anything. Now your camera is much larger because it's in a cage, etc. Eventually, it will wind up being the same size as the cine anyway, once you add all the tools required to actually shoot anything. So in my world, why not just start big? Where I will buy a Pyxis as I said earlier, it would be for quick pickups and such, where no accessories are needed. 

In terms of storage, we have tested multiple cards from a few vendors, the OWC Ultra cards and of course Angelbird are the best ones. Lexar professional does have a new CFExpress 4.0 card that we've briefly tested, which also performs well. We have confirmed that all 3 cards, in 1TB and 2TB variants, can record all formats no problem outside of 12k Q0 higher than 24fps. That's really the only limitation. We also noticed at full 220fps on the CINE, it would only shoot for 15 minutes before overheating the card, but I doubt anyone would really need that functionality. So the CFExpress works great, no problems at all. You can also record to external USB storage, but it's a lot slower, you're relegated to 9k at most and even then, limited bandwidth stuff. On the 2TB cards, at 12:1 12k 1.85:1, you can get around 2hrs of time, that's not bad at all. I'd say it's probably where you'd be most of the time. So you don't NEED the 4TB cards really. 

In terms of post, learn resolve, get a good computer and just do all post in resolve. I can't imagine touching an adobe product in 2025, there just is no reason anymore. I have to support Premiere for multiple clients and its such a dog shit program that requires rendering for any changes to your timeline if you have effects, it bogs everything down and you're constantly running into brick walls with resolution limitations and scaling, amongst other things like color science which sucks. Na, just use Resolve. The camera comes with a studio license. Forget Premiere exists. 

Let me know if you have any questions. 

 

8 hours ago, Robert Houllahan said:

As far as I understand it the AI frame gen is included in the permanent license price.

OOOO Reaaaalllly. That's new then! We did a film restoration open house late last year and they said it wasn't included, but that's great to know. 

8 hours ago, Robert Houllahan said:

I ran it on a Xeon E5-2699 CPU  X99 system with a new RTX 3080Ti GPU and it did not lag or feel clunky despite the X99-Xeon being a bit older CPU and chipset.

Yea I haven't tried it on our new system, Phoenix is really nice tho! So happy to have a new system finally. 
Ryzen 9950X with 5080. Still kinda wish we had more video memory, but we just don't do enough restoration to be worth it. ||

7 hours ago, Perry Paolantonio said:

The fact is, there is no single tool that does everything well. If I had to pick two to use on the regular it'd be MTI and Phoenix, probably. With our permanent (older) Phoenix Touch license, we can do almost everything we'd need to do, but the full version of Phoenix gets you access to the grading tools, which are useful for things like scratch concealment. 

Yea Phoenix Dry Clean is very good. The only thing it's not great at is generating new data to cover scratches. DRS does tho, so that helps, but so does PFClean... 

7 hours ago, Perry Paolantonio said:

PFClean is utter garbage and the company behind it is even worse. They won't admit when they have problems and they won't stand behind their software. We lost tens of thousands of dollars in completed work because of the crash fest that was PFClean. absolute nightmare. The only serious contenders here are MTI, Phoenix, and Diamant. 

Yea, everyone has warned me. I wasn't going to invest, just get a license for a month and test. We're also a 90% Mac shop, so it's nice to have something that is native to our systems and just flat out works on our color grading bay which is Mac of course. I'm still frustrated Digital Vision hasn't made their DVO plugins for film cleanup available to OFX plugins on Mac. They clearly use CUDA, which sucks. This is why we built a new PC. 

2 minutes ago, Robert Houllahan said:

I really liked using DRS it worked very well and was very easy to learn and seems to have a pretty great deep feature set.

Yea it works great, it's a hog resource wise, but it's a very good tool, arguably the best. 

I'm starting a huge project shortly that the client doesn't have a lot of money for, so I'm gonna license PFClean and use their new AI tools and see how it goes. I hope it works well, the tests we've done with them thus far, have been stellar. The DRS AI frame generation tool is incredible as well, but they charge more for it. 

2 hours ago, Robert Houllahan said:

What is the yearly cost for Diamant? 

Last time I checked, it was $1499/month 

1 hour ago, Uli Meyer said:

Interesting, thank you for sharing the photo! I'll be shooting a short film in a couple of weeks and was told that the material I will receive is still with the remjet layer. I think it might be a little while before the remjet stock gets phased out. While that happens, they'll probably be running a machine that can process it.

Yea, they aren't releasing the new stock to the public yet, it'll be a while. 

They won't be phasing out the older stock anytime soon. 

The main reason they're phasing out remjet has to do with inconsistencies with the coating and removal, which has plagued many films. They wanted to offer an alternative process to deal with it and now they do have one. Kodak is blaming the labs for the remjet removal issues. The labs are blaming Kodak, so it's all a big cluster. 

3 hours ago, dan kessler said:

On another thread you mentioned DLC coating as a viable solution.  Have you not tried it?  Does it work?

Can't make it smooth enough, talked to an expert, not gonna work. 

Now we're researching paints that can be polished. 
 

7 hours ago, Tommy Aschenbach said:

The AHU is a new layer in the emulsion under the cyan dye layer. It contains silver that is converted in the bleach and washed off in the fix. Bleach bypass will cause the AHU to be retained.

Oh interesting, tats fascinating. Why would the AHU later contain silver? 

5 hours ago, Joerg Polzfusz said:

And I can’t think of any camera for these formats without a „silver“ pressure plate.

16mm Bolex's do not have a polished silver plate in the Rex series, they are one of the only camera systems (besides super 8 of course) that will not in any way be effected. 

5 hours ago, Gautam Valluri said:

Looks like bleach bypass on the new negatives will be tricky nigh pointless

The emulsion is the same, so why would bleach bypass be different?