Tyler Purcell

Monoaware is kind of an art house, they don't really work with modern professional equipment. It's more of a place for people who are beginner filmmakers. They do have a 35mm course in July, but 1 roll of film and $900 bux? EEEK!

Cool, I will be here for sure! :) You may have to travel up to new york in order to find the right thing on the east coast. I know there are a lot of revival/film guys in NYC who will probably be glad to help you out.

Welcome to the forum Dave! I offer hands-on courses with motion picture film in here in Los Angeles. My weekend course is free, just need to pay for film, processing and print. We project on 16 and 35mm as well, so students can do the entire workflow if they wish. We can use either Aaton cameras or Arri, 3 perf (scan only) or 4 perf (print). It's all up to what you're looking to accomplish. Generally I put my "students" on to short films I'm making on motion picture film. We have one of those shoots coming up May 27th and 28th.

Well sure, but the lousy manufacturing (some small design flaws too) makes what could have been an awesome camera, just a toy. Yes, it exposes film, but not much more then that. :P

The problem is, 800ft loads are special order, they aren't sitting on shelves. So where Kodak can make them for you, they will only do so as a special batch AND it will take a while to get there. Also, there won't be ANY discount, they will charge full retail pricing for them. I personally don't see the benefits of working with the 800ft magazines, unless you're doing a speciality production that needs 22 minute loads, which is rare to say the least. The 800ft mags are also pretty darn big, making the camera an entirely different beast.

I lucked out, it was a great deal (around 6K) and it fell into my lap, from a fellow filmmaker who saw my school's website online and wanted to help. This is the 3rd such "hookup" I've been fortunate to receive from fellow filmmakers who wanted to help me out. Later I figured out, there were 5 of them made by Aaton before they made the Penelope. They were an added expense and Aaton gave the owners a 4 perf movement as well, which is cool little bonus for a used camera to have. :) Anyway, I love the camera. It has a lot of idiosyncrasies, but it's the smallest, lightest, quietest, 3 perf camera on the market. Makes the 3 perf Arricam SL look like a tank when put side by side. I had a friend whose been shooting 35mm for 2 decades come over recently and throw it on his shoulder. He laughed and asked why nobody used this camera, he absolutely loved it and he's not the only one. :)

Honestly, the K3 is a real toy. The pressure plate, gate and pull down system, really prevent the camera from being any good. I've never been able to get "stable" images out of my K3 and it's really clean and in really good shape. I mean the short flange distance is nice, but there are other far more stable cameras with a short flange distance, the Bolex for instance would be first on the list, followed closely by something like an Eclair ACL. So if the idea is to save money on glass... umm, those two cameras are winners in my view. The bolex has excellent registration in a very small package. What you get with cameras like Aaton and Arri, is a much better/stable image, plus far better consistency (speed). This is why the entire industry uses Arri and Aaton cameras, it's not because they're expensive, it's because THEY ARE BETTER and are compatible with modern glass. If you don't care about "modern features" then I'd simply buy a Bolex... Either EBM (electonic) or H16R wind up. Sure, it's a beam splitter camera, but you can't beat the image.

Giray, there are no more 3 perf or 2 perf movements for Arricam's on the open market. Arri only made a few of them and they're all currently in cameras.

It depends on how controlling your actors are. I've been on sets where actors are pretty laid back and let the director do their thing. I've also been on sets where the actor keeps mucking up and wanting to go again, without the camera restarting. I spend most of my time in post and have been very privileged to watch dailies from some big hollywood movies. The professionalism from the actors hasn't changed one bit, I don't see any difference from a "film" set to a "digital" set. Furthermore, it's rare to even get outtakes. I've watched entire days worth of dailies from various hollywood movies and you may get one snicker or mucked up line, maybe? Generally they stop the camera dead in it's tracks when it happens and reset, no difference from the film days. What HAS changed, are the low budget movies. Digital has brought in a laziness to those productions for sure. I've worked on many low-budget shows where the camera was left running for a long time, I mean one start-stop includes a dozen takes of the same scene. Obviously this wasn't as egregious during the film days because you'd simply roll out. Today, I've seen 20 minute takes of a 1 page (1 minute) scene, on a low budget show. Not so much on the bigger shows... they stick to the same practices as normal. One other side note... one thing that HAS changed quite a bit is how many cameras are running at a given time. It's rare to work on a show that's one camera these days. Almost every movie I've worked with, covers almost everything with 2 or more cameras.

I'm still in shock how crisp it is. Damn thing looks like it was shot in 8k or something. I hope Warner does their usual routine and strikes a few 70mm prints, that would be so awesome... but I doubt it will happen.

Yea we talked about a few possible issues, one of which is obvious... the machine stopped for 20 seconds or so. This not only effects the development process, but film that goes between the baths with chemicals on it still, will have odd discolorations as well. These machines are not designed to be stopped, they have to run at a constant speed or poop like this happens. The malfunctioning part (which stopped the machine from running) had nothing to do with the processing portion of the machine either.

Update today... supposedly, they are going to be pushing 35mm on this heavier then on Interstellar.

Confirmed today, it was a lab issue. I got a very nice e-mail and the lab isn't charging me for the work and apologizes. Luckily, it was only 500ft that was damaged and I can easily re-shoot those scenes. Had it been a feature, it may have only been a single angle of a scene. But for a short film with no budget, it's a lot more unfortunately. Sa'll good! Cast is willing to spend a few more hours re-shooting a scene that I absolutely hated anyway. It was crazy windy out there, so we had no usable audio and we rushed through everything because we were at the whim of the setting sun. Now I can re-shoot with more patience and get it right! Maybe even shoot even more stuff to fill out the scene. I've shot film for a while and this is the first time it's happened to me and I'm glad it wasn't on an "important" project. Thanks to everyone's diagnosis assistance, I appreciate the support.

Yes, this is the Aaton 35III The shutter angle on the XTR Prod and 35III can only be adjusted a small amount, from 180 to 144, it can't go any lower then that. So if it were a physical camera issue with the shutter, you'd see a decrease in brightness due to blocking more light, not an increase. Plus, it wouldn't be a perfect line that goes across the middle of a single frame, it would be a gradual change over the course of more then one frame. I had a fellow cinematography/filmmaker friend come over last night and we analyzed the footage more closely. There are many more issues with the material then what I posted earlier. There are slight color shifts, where the red layer simply vanishes all of a sudden and comes back, usually with a flash and/or some pattern on the frames before and after, mixed with white dots/dirt on the frame. This would lead us to believe the film was either damaged in manufacturing or damaged in the lab work. Neither one of us has ever seen anything like this. At this point, without further conformation from the lab, I don't want to post any more clips. I've used this lab for years and never had any issues.

It's gonna be awesome! So far only a hand-full of theaters have signed up for 70mm releases, but I feel that number will grow very soon. Rumors are saying that Dunkirk will be a WIDE 70mm release like Hateful Eight. This is the reason for the delay on it's release, they're working out deals with theaters right now and making dozens of 5 perf prints. Unfortunately, the film release will be day and date with the digital release. We may see special engagements prior to the national release however, so everyone needs to keep their eyes open for those. I'm also not sure about IMAX's involvement, but I don't doubt, Nolan's pull will push 15/70 projectors back into theaters that went digital, like the Chinese and NY Loews. We're more then two months away from release, so the list will change as time goes on.

Honestly, I've had zero technical issues with either camera. I've shot with the Epic MX and Dragon quite a bit and did a few industrial shows with the Alexa XT few years ago when it first came out. All of the cameras worked flawlessly in the heat of Southern California, no over-heating, no excess fan noise, no glitches in the image, no green or magenta cast on the Red. What I learned after the fact is that the Red cameras I've been using, were updated by Red recently and that update "fixed" the green and magenta issues. I also use set my white balance setting more towards the warm side of the spectrum and try to use warmer glass. The MX imager is a bit noisy compared to the Dragon imager, which I feel is a lot better over-all. The Alexa imager is beautiful on pretty much all the Alexa's. In terms of camera use, if you're talking Alexa Mini vs Dragon, I can't help... But in terms of Alexa XT or any of the old-school bodies, I prefer the Alexa. The direct access to most key functions from the side of the body is critical, something Red doesn't have. Plus, the old school Alexa body is just a better operating camera, it feels like a real camera, where the Epic/Dragon/Weapon, body feels like a brick that you always have to attach poop onto. I don't like Red's proprietary modular system at all, I think it tricks people into thinking the cameras are cheaper then they really are. I think Arri does a much better job at packaging cameras in my opinion. I can attest to how nice the Red and Arri workflows are in the year 2017... where we finally have CPU's, GPU's and drives fast enough to deal with the raw camera material in real-time. I can take Raw 6k Red Code from the Dragon (or Arri Raw 3.2k), throw it into DaVinci and with some minor tweaks, get a decent image out of it, with real-time playback. Yes, you need a super fast computer, yes you need a super fast graphics card and storage, but it's exciting to finally be at a point in history where it's POSSIBLE to do this stuff. This boost in computing performance, really came about around 3 years ago. So over-all, I kinda like both the Dragon and XT, they're great cameras. I haven't used the Mini yet... probably won't anytime soon.

No argument there, but most of their issues were logistical, not technical. I don't blame them for shooting digitally.

I think it's bullshit personally. It's an example of wanting a look (film) but not willing to follow the protocol to get that look. The easy solution is to give up and use the magic box. In my eyes, that's really what it comes down to. Digital appears to be an easy solution to everyone's problem. Yet, those very same people aren't looking at anything else but tomorrow. They simply make product and when they're done with one, they'll go make another. What they shoot with and how that relates to distribution and archiving, is irrelevant.

I agree, both stories required the use of the technology they pioneered. At the same time, over-all, I do feel filmmakers today, under-light compared to during the film days when they really couldn't.

Wikipedia has some great, well made pages about this. Here is one that describes all the formats: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_pulldown In terms of 16mm vs 35mm, the camera body alone, isn't much more money. However, there are a lot of draw backs. Most 35mm cameras don't have on-board battery solutions and run of 24v, unlike 16mm cameras which are mostly 12v and have battery solutions. Most inexpensive 35mm cameras are also very heavy, requiring different support. They also don't hand-hold very well, requiring special accessories to do the most basic of shoulder mount shots. 35mm cameras require 35mm coverage glass, which is generally more then twice the cost of super 16 lenses. Most 35mm cameras that are inexpensive, are also 4 perforations per pull down. So your standard 400ft roll from 16mm which lasts 11 minutes, would last less 4 and 1/2 minutes on 35mm. I personally don't see the validity in owning a bulky, old school 4 perf 35mm package these days for personal projects. I sold my 4 perf package and bought the lightest, smallest, sync sound (quiet) 35mm package ever made... Aaton 35III and I even found a 3 perf version. Even then, I don't foresee myself shooting any professional productions with it. In the indy world, nobody can afford 35 these days, so honestly I shoot A LOT of 16 and nobody has ever asked once for a 35mm camera.

They're on the case... I just don't know how the processor could make a pattern of light and dark in random places. Sure, if the machine stopped, that explains the sudden burst, but it doesn't explain the very random color shifts and exposure patterns.

Initially I was thinking camera too. However, all of the issues are met with a color shift, just prior to the jump in exposure. So where there is a distinct pattern, the color shift is a pretty huge clue. Here is a new clip that shows this color shift and how "photochemical" it looks. https://www.dropbox.com/s/9ev0od0en71ku9f/35mm%20issue%203.mov?dl=0 I did just re-watch all the footage and it appears the problem starts on a particular roll of film and continues throughout the next two rolls, but the first roll is 100% fine, outside of the upper loop being a bit tight and the pressure plate wobbling a bit. The problem comes on like a tun of bricks too, it's the 2nd clip in the first video listed above. That clip is 200ft into a roll and the first 200ft were 100% fine and all of a sudden the entire shot color shifts and goes way over exposed. I got the film from Reel Good and it came off Westworld, so I'm assuming its good. It was all 430 - 450ft short ends, so I assume they shot x amount on a 1000ft roll and sold the rest. The negative is still at the lab, it's going to be checked tomorrow. Hopefully we'll figure out what happened. Thanks for the input, it's much appreciated!

Nope, it's all over the roll, it's very random.

So... this is an oddball. I got this film back from a shoot and MOST of it is totally fine. However, this one roll has a very unusual issue I can't quite explain. Every once in a while, the exposure increases (edit: with a distinct color shift) all of a sudden and then goes back down again. I don't believe it's related to the camera because it happens mid scene and across the entire frame. It also has no impact on how the camera is moved or positioned. The camera also came from a rental house and it was well taken care of, so I assume it had been used enough for any major issue like this to have shown up prior, but that's an assumption. It maybe an X-ray issue from shipping across the country, but I was assured Fed Ex ground doesn't go through the Xray machine AND, all of the 16mm I sent in the same box was fine. Heck, half of the 35mm stuff is fine as well, it's only two rolls that have any issues. Trying to figure out which because if it's a lab issue, it's not a big deal... I can re-shoot the scene. However, if it's the film, that's a big issue because I have a lot of this stuff and if it's all screwed, I'm not gonna be a happy camper... What do you think? https://www.dropbox.com/s/bf0jpgnmh4bqxmw/35mm%20issues.mov?dl=0

Wait what? You loaded the camera emulsion side in? Interesting, I didn't know it would capture any image that way, I always thought the rem jet coating would pretty much render the film worthless. What a cool result tho! :) Side note... where'd ya get the costume from? I dig it! :)