Tyler Purcell

Well yea and someone who doesn't know what he's talking about, as everyone above has confirmed.

Yea, he's a super nice guy.

Do you mean running at 24fps in reverse?

Ah that's nice. Fotokem does so many, they've started charging $50 bux for 2 breakdowns (one single 400ft roll). They also have quite a collection of spools they'll gladly give you if you process with them. I've had to do this for a few clients who had cameras in for service with me, but didn't give me spools. I've also gotten 100ft 35mm daylight spools from them as well, which is a real treat because they're rarer than shit outside of labs, who use them for optical work. The great thing about the A minima spools is that they're super easy to 3D print. We've already designed a FAR better replacement spool, with less flex (a common issue with the OEM ones) and an actual slot for the film when loading. That's one of the biggest problems with the stock spools.

I'm confused. Nearly everyone who has an A Minima, has spools. The labs give them back to you after processing and MOST labs have a stock of them as well. Fotokem for instance, gives them away if you ask for them. I've fixed dozens of A minima's, shipped to me from around the world and all of them have two spools in each mag. I have never seen a camera without 2 spools for each mag. A brand new sealed roll made within the last 6 months direct from Kodak of any modern Vision 3 stock 400ft is $220 + tax. So if you pay a lab to break them down for you, at most it's going to cost $50 bux for one 400ft roll to be put onto 2 daylight spools. So that means you're at $270 for 2 rolls of film plus tax of course. If you're a beginner and you camera has no spools, something again I've never seen before, then yes your deal may sound worthwhile. However, before they discontinued these, they sold the rolls with film for $140 ish.

FYI brand new stock purchased directly from Kodak, manufactured within 6 months of shipment to your door, is $220/roll for 400ft loads retail pricing.

As others have pointed out, 3 perf is the way to go. 2 perf cameras can be tricker to get ahold of and they can also be more to rent in the long run. 3 perf is more ubiquitous and you will get a lager image for sure. The graph above does not really do it justice, the difference is pretty large between 2 perf and 3 perf at 2.40:1 because 2 perf is still cropped to get that aspect ratio. Plus with 3 perf, you can re-frame in post if there are any issues during the shoot. Can't do that with 2 perf, you've got hard mattes and if ya get a hair in the gate or anything like that, you're screwed.

I don't believe ORWO has any intentions on doing much besides releasing what they have in small batches.

It was Arri's crowning achievement that scanner, very impressive.

Got ya, so if it's theater lighting, then yea you'd be ok. I'd push for 8 stops difference between what you want black and what you want to see. 500T has this uncanny ability to capture blacks WAY under the exposure range, especially in a properly lit scene, where the bleed is not controlled. Getting silky smooth blacks will require a considerable amount of lighting and good control for areas you don't want to see on stage.

Wow that's pretty impressive. I always thought it was a different gate.

So it can run pin registered at 8fps?

Check the original posting date, this is from 2 years ago. I doubt he has anything left.

So as others pointed out C mount lens camera is your best option. The problem is that very few primes under 6mm were made and on the S8 format, 6mm is still not that wide. Most of those wide angle lenses are also total junk, special use security camera stuff and nothing really designed for cinema. You may be able to get away with one, but they'll not look too good. The majority of zoom lenses probably won't close focus enough to be used, so you'll have to go with a prime. Even with Macro, it's hard to nail it with a zoom because you'd be dealing with DOF issues. If you don't mind it being slightly out of focus, maybe? I'm a stickler for focus, so perhaps if you don't mind then a standard Macro lens like the stock lens on a Beaulieu 6008 may work, but at 7mm, it's not very wide either. So it's close focus vs wide angle which will be your problem, along with finding a decent quality lens as well.

Yep just a stills camera for BTS images. This has been common practice on film sets since the advent of SLR cameras. You'll see similar blimped cameras going back to the 60's.

If you mean contrasty, do you mean just big patches of black area? Do you want to see into that area or do you want it to be very contrasty on purpose? Also what format? 8mm, 16mm, 35mm? What stop range can you be in? Can you light or are you using natural lighting only?

I was told it uses a different gate in this mode, is that true? I've never seen one run like that.

The Arri scan's are also hella slow. With 4 flashes per frame, it takes a while to scan. Ya need more than one machine to be in business with an Arriscan. Taking 8hrs to do a 1000ft roll of film, means ya gotta charge a lot.

At least in the states it is. Our cinemas are owned by Chinese conglomerates and they are starting to fail thanks partially to covid.

I've mixed S16 and 3 perf S35mm before and it's actually really nice. 1.66:1 with black bars on the side and then you switch to a wider format for certain scenes. I prefer 2:1 personally and unless you're going theatrical, it's a way better format for televisions. That's part of why I love 3 perf so much. As long as you keep 2.40:1 frame lines, you can always adjust the aspect ratio later if you don't want it as wide. So the benefits of 3 perf are: - Less hair possibility - Reframing - More of the fame is used (roughly 2mm worth) - Easier to stabilize in post if you need it - Cameras are easier to get a hold of, both renting and buying - Arguably different field of view then 2 perf The ONLY benefit of 2 perf is lower cost film. The detractors are: - Hairs can ruin shots - Stuck to 2.40:1 aspect ratio - Cameras are generally more money to rent and nearly impossible to purchase. - Lesser quality image. When you do the math, 2 perf is only 2mm taller than super 16. That's really not a lot. When you're shooting 3 perf and even just matting to 1.85:1, you're roughly 5mm taller than 16mm. That's a HUGE amount. Using Anamorphic lenses on S16mm, is very common to get a 2.40:1 widescreen image and frankly, if money savings is your thing, I just don't know why you wouldn't do that? Shoot 50 ISO stock, low grain on those widescreen shots and differentiate them from the spherical 1.66:1 shots by the stock and lensing.

Personally, I think we've seen the end of the film renaissance for studio production. There was a great run of what, nearly a decade since the Kodak bankruptcy, but covid ENDED cinemas. It's over. They're kaput. As the global inflation leads to major recession, cinemas will take another huge hit and studio's will be reluctant to spend the kind of money they are now on film, since it's an "excess" which is not required for production. Sure, consumers and low-budget projects will still be excited about film, labs will continue to do well for those people, which there is plenty of. Kodak of course, can't make film fast enough right now, they're still delayed on many product shipments due to demand being so high, especially for still film. This won't change, even with the recent price hikes. Everyone is shooting on still film these days, it seems everywhere I go, I run into a random bloke with an old 35mm or medium format camera taking stills. With motion picture, I think that super 8 and 16mm trend, will continue to grow and expand. With the Alexa 35 and whatever full frame version is destine to come out in the next year or two, I think there is far less reason to shoot on film than ever before. The benefits, especially for hollywood, just don't exist. The negative goes into boxes and stored. There are no IP's made, no IN's made, the finished version is 100% digital, so what's the point of shooting on film? The major benefit is having a cut negative that you can create an IP from and a properly stored IP can be scanned in 50 years without any degradation. Good luck finding those digital files in 50 years, they'll be long gone for MOST productions. Ya may find a YCM separation, but even those are not being made as frequently anymore. I feel bad for the CRT recorders, poor tubes! I love film, it's my business, but I have to be pragmatic about it.

I'm wholeheartedly in agreement with David. His advice is what I tell everyone. Don't bother with 2 perf, work on 3 perf so you can change your framing in post and not have to deal with the limitations of the 2 perf format, which there are many. Yes you'll save money but at a cost of things potentially not coming out as well.

When you democratize something, it makes it harder to amortize. Work on film was a requirement in many places due to the low-quality alternatives. Once digital was good enough, the cost difference was clearly swung in digitals favor for everything but perhaps the largest features, with the biggest budgets. It's not much different today honestly.

Sounds like someone didn't know how to operate the Scan Station OR it was a very old model.

I've never been able to make them work either. Resolve needs to know exactly the source and seeing as the source in this case is a random image, it just won't work. If you shot with an Alexa and applied the proper LUT, it would work fine. There is no magical LUT for film scanners unfortunately.