Tyler Purcell

No, you'd never want to use a softer, less accurate camera for establishing shots. I have a Beaulieu 2016 as my "B" camera and with a good lens, I'd put it next to my Aaton. I'd never do that with a K3.

Fotokem makes excellent prints. Projectors are not spaceships, they are very simple and truthfully anyone with some mechanical experience at all, should be able to keep a projector running forever. Contact printers are also not very complicated pieces of kit. Fotokem built their own LCD based film recorder and one they tweak it, I'm certain it'll be fine for the future. Where Kodak's numbers for film production are never a good indication, they also aren't horrible. They still make the only viable products for the industry. Until another company comes in as a disruptor, I don't see this trend changing. Unlike raw stock, labs and projectors, which seem to be in very limited quantities, there are thousands of cameras out there. I can't imagine there being a problem with cameras. If there is, Panavison will just make a new one if there is demand.

Well, it is working already. Reparatory screenings on film, are generally more popular than digital. The problem is advertising. You don't need that in Hollywood, it's such a tight nit community, but you DO need it in places far away from tinseltown. Some reparatory theaters are volunteer run and are part of the community. Others are part of schools and are open to the public to help make money to keep them alive. The key is to continue to promote analog as something unique, not necessarily better, but an "experience" rather than just watching something for the sake of the inherent content.

Wow, yea that's right. Dang, it's not well documented until you read the spec sheet.

We do most of our cleaning as Perry states. It works ok, the wet gate at 4fps, does the rest.

I'm always gonna push more towards an Arri scan, its pin registered and with the full HDR mode and IR pass, it's really unbeatable in the industry. Outside of the Lasergraphics Director, the Arri Scan is basically the top machine for scanning camera negatives, it truly doesn't get any better. The Scanity is an outstanding machine in its own right tho, I doubt you'd really see any difference between the outside of operator setting differences.

Kinda? It's pretty weak, but yes it has something.

They're both excellent scanners. I bet you could never tell the difference between them on HDR mode.

I know a bit about what's going on, but I don't think I can really spill details yet. Suffice to say, it's not a "new" stock at all. It's simply a still film that's been made to work in a motion picture film camera with the proper coatings and lubrication. I'm not sure it even has an anti-halation coating, but obviously it's ECN-2 based. In terms of ISO, my educated guess is that it's 400 iso. Why? It just makes sense. They have 50, 100 (Ektachrome), 200, 250 covered. What they don't have is a finer grain, but still sensitive stock. The cool thing about still film, is that it's not necessarily daylight OR tungsten. So using a still film for motion picture, would be very interesting and deliver a result that may work really well for mixed light sources where you aren't so beholden to a single color balance like with standard motion picture stocks. We aren't printing these days, so why does any of the stocks truly need to have a meaningful color balance one way or the other. I almost feel Kodak should be making more generic run of the mill color balance stocks. Maybe make a 50D for daylight and a 500T for tungsten, but everything else in the middle COULD be 4k rated. Release date is unknown, but from what I understand, more information will come out this summer.

Wow insane, I can't believe thats an actual thing. lol

Prasad has an OXSCAN which can do 16mm at 8k I'm pretty sure. It would be GROSSLY expensive, but 100% doable. -Edit- Looks like they also got their new DFT Polar in, which can do full frame 8k scans in 16mm INCLUDING multi-pass HDR. So that may be worth discussing with them as well. Robert @ Cinelab in MA has some cool tools that he's been developing and frequents this forum. May wanna give him a message and see if he has something up his sleeve. It's easier with his stuff because it's more customizable than simply a fixed focal length system like most scanners.

- Edited - I already responded, whoops.

Sadly, there is no easy way to do this. The film actually runs backwards in the camera. The perf would be on the wrong side if you attempted to use daylight spools. I have some ideas on how to make it work, but it would require a modification to the camera body and it would be permanent. It's possible for sure, but it would be tricky for owners who didn't want to make this mod AND it would be expensive because it would require an all new mag system.

Yea it's crazy. We are working on a solution. We have tried one thus far, but it's been so-so. We are going to invest heavily into developing something, but ETA maybe next year. They also won't be cheap. Kodak made the original spools and I bet they took a loss on every one.

What's the question?

AH nice, that's a good lightweight kit. 416 is "the" mic! I was wondering because it sounds great!

Kodak made them. I highly doubt they'd sell those tools. New molds... it maybe the only way.

Yes, I love this feeling of showing some B-Roll over the voices of the people. I used it quite a bit on my shows and it really helps. The filmmaker can be engaged in getting the dialog and not behind a camera. What are you using for recorder? It sounds pretty good.

... and if nobody knows this, the spools were designed for 10 uses or less. They actually warp over time and we've had major issues getting older spools to work. I have many that are so warped, they won't take up film anymore. Fine for supply, but eventually we will run out of good, non-warped spools. We've been trying to develop a replacement, but it's been tricky because the stock spools are extremely thin plastic, something difficult to re-create without using the same method of manufacturing they used.

Beautiful work, I'm really looking forward to the final product. Did you do any sync sound scenes, or just B-Roll mixed with dialog? I've been doing that a lot and I really like the look/feeling of that, instead of having people speak on camera.

Interesting, yea I mean the camera we've been wanting to upgrade our scanner is $3500 USD. I think it's because the imager is physically larger than the cheaper cameras and for a reason; better dynamic range with larger pixels. I guess if the quality doesn't matter, then it doesn't matter.

Oh interesting, I've seen this phenomena before. So they don't work like standard camera imagers then with a final combined output?

So really it's just down to a bandwidth issue in terms of speed. Did anyone make something faster or was it just lower res?

Huh interesting, I never thought about going CCD. So why are they so cheap compared to CMOS? Is it just down to imager size and tech?

I just get the generic gaf tape from the expendables store. I use it like Uli; to cover the latches really. It's not a light leak solution.