Tyler Purcell

Interesting, makes complete sense as well. I didn't know that was missing on your camera. All of those guide components are necessary for the camera to function properly.

Just saying even at a crazy ratio like 50:1, the cost of film isn't so great on a big multi-million dollar movie. These guys on Lost City of Z claimed film cost them 750k, which is unbelievable. At a 10:1 ratio, you can shoot an entire movie with panavision 5 perf 65mm cameras for 1.5M! So when someone says 750K for 35mm, I have to guess the ratio was super high. I just budgeted a 110 minute feature on 3 perf S35mm @ 10:1 and the "film" aspect is costing around $80k.

There is also no reason to shoot a 200:1 ratio... If you're careful with your shooting ratio, the cost difference between film and digital is nothing on a multi-million dollar production. I've done all the math and made a spreadsheet with variable shooting ratio and photochemical vs digital options. It's pretty interesting when you start putting in numbers, what you get out is not very expensive, if you keep that ratio low. I think most movies can shoot 50:1 and be totally fine.

Ya know, when people complain about shooting on film in remote places and choose to shoot digital, stories like this must be brought up. How your movie looks is more important in the long run then cheeping out. They had similar problems on Revenant which prompted them dumping 65mm photography and going all digital. I hope that film print makes the rounds!

Techniscope is a non-anamorphic 2 perf format. Taking a 1.67:1 S16 image and using anamorphic lenses in some way on 35mm seems counter intuitive. The 1.67:1 S16 image will print nicely with bars at the top and bottom, onto academy framed 4 perf 35mm using an optical printer OR what I suggested, digitization and then laser out.

It just looks better and better. He's such a great cinematographer, that trailer is almost like a demo reel it's so pretty. It says online there are going to be prints made... I hope one of them works its way around los angeles.

When you say "some rolls" I assume it's only for a test. As pointed out above, you will do a blow up to 4 perf 35mm and it's expensive, very very very expensive. It's far less money to scan your Super 16 negative at 4k and do a laser out to film after color correction. It will be a crisper image and retain much of the super 16 detail that goes missing with the optical blow up process. Plus you have a lot more control in the DI suite to cleanup the S16 image.

Honest and interesting, thanks for the clarification.

Greg, did you see it on the big screen or at home? I saw it in laser projected 4k and it didn't have any of the issues you're describing.

You mean it looked pretty... looks like a video game to me. :(

The URSA 4.6k is FAR easier to use then the Canon C100, which is a garbled mess. You may find yourself re-thinking your entire strategy on how you use the camera due to it's ease of use. Having shot with the C100 and C300MKII, I can attest to how horrible the menu's and controls are. The URSA's exposure tools are also MUCH BETTER and easier to use then the C100. There really isn't any comparison between the two cameras either. The C100 is an 8 bit 4:2:0 MPEG 2 camera, the URSA Mini 4.6k is a 14 bit RAW camera that can also shoot 12 bit 4:4:4 Pro Res XQ as well. The big problem with the URSA's in general is their lack of an Optical Low Pass filter. This is a HUGE PROBLEM, but there are solutions. Running any filtration in front of the lens helps considerably. Softer cinema glass will also help with the issue. Google search moire issues and you'll see what I'm talking about. Truthfully, I'm a pretty big fan of the URSA 4.6k, the only reason I don't own one is the OLPF issue, but I've been playing with it for a while now and I think it's a great camera. It captures colors the way I like to grade in the coloring bay. Mind you, the C100 does as well, I think the C100 has a good looking imager. It's just matched to a poor processor, which even prohibits capturing a decent signal externally. With the full kit (viewfinder, shoulder kit, V mount batteries) it makes a powerful weapon. It's biggest issues are the lack of direct menu controls without opening up the display. I'd also say it's a bit on the heavy side, which kinda sucks if you're shooting shoulder all day long. It also has a few configuration issues, timecode input rarely works, the XLR's on top is bogus, the power button being behind the display sucks as well. But meh... I'd rather have good menu's and a great looking image anyway.

The video from CES has the camera running, it sounded like a normal super 8 camera. Nothing crazy loud, but not sync-sound quiet.

That's because they use two different streaming technologies. The 1080p signal is .h264 at around 5Mbps and the UHD signal is .h265 at around 15Mbps. If you streamed 1080p @ 15Mbps, you'd be not complaining. I have dozens of 15Mbps rips from BluRay and you can't tell the difference from the original media. (BD is 35 - 50Mbps .h264) Also... right now it's in a "beta" phase. Once more people start using it, the quality will reduce. I remember when HBO did a special satellite HD Broadcast years ago, it looked awesome because it was 19Mbps! Long GOP MPEG2 stream and it was amazing. Now, we're lucky to get 1 - 5Mbps on satellite TV.

Depends on how far away you are from the screen. I mean, my screen is around 7 feet wide and I sit around 12 feet away. So yea in that case, it would be nice to have a higher resolution device. As a filmmaker who appreciates technology, I will absolutely invest in a 4k, laser-based, three chip DLP projector at some point. It's been my dream forever to have a decent home theater projector (I don't do monitors). For the vast majority of people who have 50 - 70 inch TV's, you'd have to sit 6 - 8 feet away for the resolution to matter.

I agree with peter, I'd just enjoy what you have. The CP16 is a real tank and honestly, having used them for years myself, I've come to really not like them. If you're going to invest in a sync sound camera, far better to get an Arri SR or Aaton LTR. They're far better cameras with much greater support available. Honestly, if you wanted an "upgrade" and don't care about sync sound, why not get a Bolex? I love my EBM, it has a far more steady pulldown mechanism and you can find Super 16 conversions online. It's quiet enough that with a barnie you could record sound if you really needed it. Plus the EBM is electric, so no more winding! yeay! The K3 is honestly one of the worst cameras I've ever owned. It's SUPER cool and retro, but it pails in comparison to the Bolex.

That will never happen though, the disk itself is "UHD" which is all the customer needs to know. I predict UHD at home will be the next big technology flatline, like 3D at home. In my opinion, there is no difference between 3D and 4k at home. They both have equal issues with bandwidth and special viewing devices, the masses simply won't adopt because there is no NEED. People bought HD TV's because they had no choice and currently, broadcasters aren't in a frenzy to upgrade. Have you tried to stream Netflix and Amazon video 4k content? I have 100Mbps service and neither one works without buffering quite a bit. So that means you need 150 - 200Mbps? The average speed in America is 25Mbps and even the average speed in the EU is only slightly more at 50Mbps. So we're A LONG WAY AWAY from having any real-time 4k internet streaming for the "masses". Sure that special UHD satellite network, things like that may expand at the cost of other networks looking like crap. Needless to say, the whole "disk" market is dying so fast it may not even survive 2017. So if you can't get UHD content on BluRay, if you can't get it via your standard television hookup, if you can't get it via internet without downloading the entire package first, umm... what's the point? 4k at home has always been a scam in my opinion, just a way for people to get excited about buying yet another flat screen TV. Just to keep the TV makers in business selling cheap crap that will start failing and/or looking bad in a few years. Has any of you seen these new 4k TVs? YUCK! I haven't seen a single one that looks good, YUCK! :(

Yea 3D at home was silly. People simply don't care about 3D and if you put the same 3D movies at the same theaters in 2D, they would have identical attendance. Eventually the industry, especially IMAX, will wake up and realize they don't NEED to spend the money to convert every 2D movie into 3D in order to make money. Prediction... the next big wave of technology to fail... 4k at home. ;)

UHD BluRay is a complete smoke screen. I have various sources telling me only a small percentage of the disks are made from 4k masters. As a consequence, I went to my local Best By and sure enough, some of the disks say right on the back in fine print something like "made from a 2k master". A bunch of the real techie nerds from the projectionist forum have UHD players and have made a list of what movies look like UHD and what movies don't. They then cross-referenced them against known data (theatrical release format and IMDB format) and found the "softer" looking movies were 2k master, whilst the crisper one's were all 4k. Basically, however the movie was released in theaters, is what format it was on the UHD BluRay. Currently only a small percentage of movies are theatrically released in 4k. A shocker to some is that current server technology, simply can't playback two streams of 4k simultaneously, so NON-IMAX 3D movies are ALWAYS 2k. Point being, UHD is kind of a joke right now. Until distributors step up their game, we're stuck in 2k land for a long, long, long time.

They really aren't... and one's and zero's on a LTO tape that combined to make a 4k file, is not future proofing either. We've had higher resolution masters for 100 years and higher resolution in cinema's for 50 - 80 years (5/70 and 15/70). It's just 4/35 was cheap and at around 2k worth of resolution on the screen at 4th generation, it was very acceptable. Once something becomes acceptable, there is no desire/need to make it better.

One of them was... Hacksaw Ridge. The other one's weren't. My complaint is that people still shoot with equipment that's lower resolution then 100 year old technology. My complaint is that the "digital" shows are generally finished at lower quality then the "film" shows, which are generally scanned in at 5 - 6k today. My complaint is that nobody cares about delivering in the highest quality possible, they only care about speed and expense on a multi-million dollar movie, where the cost to shoot and finish in 4k is less then 1% of the budget. I wholeheartedly agree that everything should be delivered in 4k today, 2k shouldn't even exist! Why MOST MOVIES are still delivering in 2k is beyond me. Well, you're so shocked this stuff happens, I bet even if I showed you a write-up in AC, you'd think its bogus. I sincerely hope my explanation of this has raised an eyebrow enough for you to research. Maybe next time your at a post house, ask around and see what people say. Again, all that matters is consumers see the movie in the best quality possible. 1080i television and 2k cinema's are NOT the best quality possible.

Re-read the numbers above, you will see I said "finished and released" which means the output from the color/finishing was x resolution. My argument is that MOST MOVIES are still FINISHED AND RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC IN 2K. That means THERE IS NO 4K OR GREATER RESOLUTION MASTER ANYWHERE ON THE PLANET. Also, if I cited all my sources, you'd still not believe it because I'm not going to record everyone's conversation I talk with. Defacto? Television is 480i, 720p and 1080i, those are the Television formats currently broadcasting in the US, with the exception of a few very scarce instances of UHD. Yes, Direct TV offers a UHD "streaming" service, where you pay per view. That service is more like internet streaming then it is "television". It's "random access" to content, rather then a channel you happen to fall onto with content already in progress, which is the definition of television. So far nobody has been able to deal with the bandwidth requirements of UHD television, which are 4x that of normal broadcasts. The current pipes are all too small to transmit 600+ channels + UHD content on some of them. This is why 480i still exists and why surfing through satellite, cable or terrestrial over the air frequencies, you can still find old SD broadcasts. There just isn't enough bandwidth for everyone to be in HD and absolutely not for UHD. This whole "future" of UHD in the home is NOT going to be television, it's going to be on-demand "web" content. This is because, a single pipe is used to stream a single stream, vs a huge pipe streaming 600+ channels at once, trying to stream some high bandwidth, some low bandwidth. Yes,.h265 is amazing and yes it's a complete game changer, but most TV's and set top boxes aren't designed to decode it at UHD resolutions. So currently, there are only three UHD content providers; Netflix/Amazon and direct TV's special service. Neither one of them have full-time UHD content even though they "claim" they do. You're absolutely right, UHD is the "future", but it's been around for 5 years now now and only a tiny myopic sector if the industry has adopted it. So why should content providers even contemplate spending the extra money to deliver in a format that hasn't been adopted in the last 5 years? Because they want to be future proof? If that were the case, they would have shot on film!

Content aggregators are the companies which QC, archive and deliver content to the various distribution channels. Everything goes through a content aggregator, from features to music videos. The content aggregator holds the "masters" and will deliver files to the various companies who request it, in the format they request it in. This is the way everyone works though. They request 4k or higher during production, but they down-res for delivery. Next time you work on one of those shows, I would be interested to actually get info on the file exported from the coloring/finishing bay. A lot of times, the down-res is done in the coloring/finishing bay because this allows more wiggle room for re-framing in post and cheaper VFX work. Since coloring/finishing is generally a rushed process on most shows, speed always trumps quality. It is true that VFX houses generally try to render in 4k, a lot of times they can't afford the time if they're being pushed schedule wise. That is 100% true. I can work in 2k and 4k in real time on my 2009 Mac Pro Tower. There is NO REASON for any movie to be finished and released in 2k. Well, the only thing that makes a difference is how the audience see's the movie. If nobody ever see's the 4k master, what's the point of making it? I have to guess this is the only reason we're still finishing movies in 2k. By the way, those numbers I quoted above are from actual sources, so you're allowed to be surprised. :)

Hard to find Aaron, I've been looking for quite a while and I had to buy a complete kit off ebay.

You mean cable television? I mean how do you know they are actually exporting the files in 4k and delivering them to the content aggregator in that format? La La Land was scanned at 6k on an arri scanner, finished and released in 4k Manchester by the sea was shot at 3.2k arri raw, finished and released in 2k Moonlight was shot (pro res capture), finished and released in 2k Arrival was shot 2.8k arri raw, finished and released in 2k Fences was scanned at 4k, but finished and released in 2k Hacksaw Ridge was shot at 3.2k arri raw, but finished in 4k and released in 2k (there will be a 4k UHD release of this movie, but theaters were all 2k) Hell or High Water was shot in 2.8k arri raw, finished and released in 2k Hidden Figures was scanned at 6k arri scanner, finished and released in 4k (same post house as La La Land) Lion was shot in 2.8k arri raw, finished and released in 2k Silence was scanned at 6k on an arri scanner, finished and released in 4k. Jackie was scanned at 3k, finished and released in 2k.

Actually, the only distributors who require 4k are Netflix and Amazon. Everything else is still 1080p, 2k and 4k aren't even options for delivery in a lot of cases. Even the little pit poop features I've been doing, we've tried to deliver in 4k and been rejected. You can be "pretty sure" all you want, but I have a pulse on the industry from the content owners, post production finishing, distributors, aggregates and presenters. Yes, 2016 had the greatest amount of 4k material in theaters, but it was still a very low percentile. The problem is, distributors aren't requiring content be delivered in 4k, so the production/post production companies aren't bothering. The storage cost to online 2k vs 4k is pretty high and as many people have pointed out, rendering 4k is very time consuming. This is why the industry is still fixated on 1080p and 2k for the time being. Don't forget, most theaters in the US are still 2k anyway.