Tyler Purcell

Me too, I'm all about sparse score. Can't say the film was lacking in score, it just wasn't a "full" score. You can hear it on iTunes, it's pretty good. Actually the death scene was super well done, gory and in real time. Had a few shocks from the audience.

One more thing to mention... I saw this film at the AMC Burbank and they have some strange screens there that look very funny. Last time I went to this theater (few years ago) I thought it was the projectors, but they're all Sony 4k models, so I doubt that was the issue. Today however I looked more carefully and it seems like the screens are designed to reflect light differently then most screens. They aren't completely flat I believe, I think they have some reflective material to them. This makes movies look very strange and more soft then normal I feel. I was very unimpressed with the presentation I saw of this movie. Yet another example of theaters trying present things differently and failing miserably.

One more thing to mention... I saw this film at the AMC Burbank and they have some strange screens there that look very funny. Last time I went to this theater (few years ago) I thought it was the projectors, but they're all Sony 4k models, so I doubt that was the issue. Today however I looked more carefully and it seems like the screens are designed to reflect light differently then most screens. They aren't completely flat I believe, I think they have some reflective material to them. This makes movies look very strange and more soft then normal I feel. I was very unimpressed with the presentation I saw of this movie. Yet another example of theaters trying present things differently and failing miserably.

The film was not made in 3D, it like MOST 3D movies was converted in post. They only do it because they get $20 per ticket for 3D vs $14 - $16 for 2D and that extra money is worth it.

Maybe... I was actually at fotokem when the IMAX truck picked up the print a few weeks before it opened. I didn't even think to ask him where it was going, figured it was being shipped out of state.

Umm.. You can buy 10 of the same second hand camera for ONE of the Kodak cameras and cannibalize those 10 for the next 100 years. The new Kodak camera is ALL ELECTRONIC. Just an FYI, the great thing about film cameras is they're all MECHANICAL, insert motor on the input shaft and the movement does the work. This new Kodak camera is controlled by a processor and software. It doesn't even have an optical viewfinder! With all that complexity, there's bound to be a problem much sooner then a 40 year old, all-mechanical camera that simply needs some lubrication every 10 years to keep running. When Kodak sells out of the new camera and stops making them (I assume it will be a limited production run), once their 7 year federally mandated support period is over, that will be the end of it. When one breaks, who is going to support it? Sometimes the truth is boring. New... in most cases, isn't "better"... It's just "different". In this case, there is nothing "different" or "better" with the output from this new camera. The video is 100% public, it's on youtube and facebook, random people are seeing it. So far nobody is impressed.

'Jackie' is far better then a normal bio pic. The story of Jackie Kennedy during the days after the presidents assassination, isn't exactly the kind of movie I'd normally be interested in. However, Natalie Portman playing Jackie Kennedy, french filmmaker Pablo Larraín and the stunning use of Super 16 to bring the audience back to 1963, were enough to peak my interest. 'Jackie' in of itself is a very simple story and from what I can tell, is completely true and told mostly in her own words. The filmmakers used many devices to tell the story, all of them pretty unique and interesting like the re-creation of old live broadcasts and the use of original 16mm footage from events around the capitol post assassination. The filmmakers did a brilliant job showing the confusion and depression that followed the assassination, making it realistic and heartfelt. Natalie Portman was outstanding in her (hopefully) oscar-winning performance portraying Jackie. It's been years since I've seen someone play a person in history so well. Not only did she talk just like her, but she even looked like her. I was convinced from the first frame to the last frame, which is very impressive. Technically, the film was just brilliant. The use of S16 (retaining the formats 1.67:1 aspect ratio) was fantastic. The film wasn't very grainy/noisy, but it did look as if the film was underexposed slightly because it looked very flat, without a lot of dynamics. The filmmakers were obsessed with the "single" shot during any dialog scenes. This technique helped them get right into the emotion of whoever was talking. I felt the lens choices were also spot-on, using a lot of the same focal length except for some well-placed zooms that worked so well. At one point, with the very unique score whaling in the background with a long zoom shot, 'Jackie' felt almost like a Kubrick film. The sparse score felt like something out of 'There Will be Blood' rather then a normal bio pic. This was to intensify the confusion and it worked very well, I just loved the score. As my analytical mind chewed on the film I noticed, there wasn't a single scene that felt out of place or unwanted, every frame was necessary to tell the story and the use of "floating" time, helped keep it interesting. I was impressed the filmmakers re-created much of the White House on a soundstage somewhere in Europe, rather then use the sets here in the states. Most of the film was shot in France, which seems like an exorbitant expense, but I gather it was necessary for some reason, maybe due to financing. Filmmaking wise, 'Jackie' was a lesson in how to tell a very simple story without letting it bore the audience. It's a character study and unfortunately, it's about someone don't even know about. The film itself is about Jackie trying to make the American people remember John Kennedy and in a lot of ways, the film exists to remind people who Jackie was. I loved 'Jackie' and not because I'm some film snob, it's because the filmmaking within the movie was so well done. It's rare to see such GOOD filmmaking in main stream theatrical movies. Portman has two hands on the Golden Globe and Oscar for her role, nobody can touch her heartfelt and perfect performance. It's sad because there are so many great performances this year, but I think she's got it in the bag. 8.5/10 4 stars out of 5.

'La La Land' is the new "standard" for fun in cinema. From the very opening number, 'La La Land' delivers a perfect mix of fantastic characters and excellent acting, mixed with vibrant musical numbers that harken back to an era of filmmaking many people forgot about. 'La La Land' is aptly named because the filmmakers are clearly in love with Hollywood, not just in location, but also in the story itself, which revolves around "making it" in the industry. So much of the story hit home, everyone in this industry has the struggles these characters go through and to me, that association made the story ever more entertaining. I must admit, I've never been a huge fan of musicals. However, the way 'La La Land' dealt with their music, worked very well. They didn't tell the story through singing, they told the story through music. If you think about it, that's the RIGHT way to make a musical because most people don't want to be sung to, but they will gladly hear a nice song that helps fill in a normal dialog scene. This film dives deep into music of various kinds and how people in the music industry are forced to do work they normally wouldn't do in order to fulfill their dreams. In a lot of ways, it's the sad reality of being in a more creative field these days and this film hit's a home run when it comes to telling the truth. Technically 'La La Land' is extremely proficient with a brilliant concept of dimming lights around actors to "pause" certain moments and sing a song for instance. It's a great device that I haven't seen used in this fashion in a long time. The dance numbers were also shot with one flowing camera move, that made them much more exciting then the more classical fast cutting method. The amount of steadicam work is absolutely insane, it seems like every scene with someone moving was shot with steadicam. You could see the cuts between takes, where they did a digital splice between two takes in order to break long takes up, but it worked well. The film was shot on 35mm with anamorphic lenses (2.40:1 aspect ratio) and it looked pretty good. Very little noticeable grain, though it was for sure a 2k finish. I was a bit dismayed with some over-exposed scenes in harsh daylight, something that could have easily been fixed on set, but it was clearly unfixable in post or they would have fixed it. There were also some issues with focus pulling, but with film cameras and anamorphic lenses, it's really hard to judge focus on complex camera moves. Lighting wise, the film was proficient, but nothing crazy. Lots of big sources at night with a key of some kind. Lots of controlled "set" lighting, which worked SOO well! I felt the set's were fantastic and so professionally done, those moments really stole the show lighting wise. The music/songs were catchy and some of the jazz numbers within the movie, were even better then the score. Of course, the actors sung and performed all of the songs on their own, including Ryan Gosling having to learn the piano from scratch in a few months of tutoring. Even John Legend has a role in the movie and does a great job, not only acting, but with writing a really nice track for the film. I loved how the film was edited (most likely written this way), which wasn't as chronological as most movies. There is even an epilogue, kind of a 4th act so to speak, that was absolutely brilliant and unexpected. That mixed with the editing style that held onto longer takes and single's vs the more standard 2 shot, it was just brilliantly made. There were moments where the filmmakers just stayed on a single, non-moving actor talking facing the camera, just looking to the right or left of the lens, for a good solid two minutes. The takes were EPIC and it worked so well thanks to the fantastic cast and I would assume, a lot of ad-lib. Over-all, I absolutely loved 'La La Land' in every way. Even though there were some technical snafus', and the big tap dance number could have been way better, I felt the movie over-all was extremely strong and VERY fun. You could tell the filmmakers were having fun making it and honestly, I was having a blast watching it. To me, more intelligent "fun" movies like this, are what is lacking in Hollywood. It seems more and more, the studio films would rather be stupid and fun, rather then intelligent and fun. This is where 'La La Land' really changes the paradigm and is just one excellent ride! I don't say this much but I do believe this is the best "general audience" movie I've seen in decades and for sure the best one this year by leaps and bounds. 9/10 4.5 stars out of 5.

Fo sho! If you have the money and you're trying to make a living off of the results, you have no choice... the risks are too high. It's just, a lot of people who shoot super 8, can't afford to spend that kind of money. They'll shoot 3 rolls a year if they're lucky. So the $50 investment on an ebay camera is worth the risk.

Right, scanned camera negative and then adjust. You're also right that it's harder to make corrections after a print is made. With that said, shooting daylight stock indoors, in a "warmer" environment, can generally be corrected out no matter what. It's shooting indoor stock outdoors without a filter, that's where things get tricky because you get into a noise issue when you try to bring up the warmer color tones to compensate.

With a old school telecine, it's better to try and correct during the transfer if you're capturing REC709. With a scanner, you'd fix it in post. If you only have access to a telecine, sometimes operators know how to capture the image in a more flat "log" style, which will give you more room for correction in post. I've never had a problem shooting exteriors and interiors on the same roll of film, without filtration and fixing it in post. As David points out, a contact print will have loss crispness to the image. This is why everyone today scans the negative and doesn't bother making prints. I have a tendency to make a print and project one roll of film from each movie I make, just to understand the color pallet so when I get into post, I have a better understanding of what the negative actually looks like, rather then what just the scan looks like.

Umm, the IMAX website says "laser digital 3D". So when you go to a movie and expect it to be 3D, but it's not... that's called false advertising.

Well, its fairly inexpensive to test. Any NEW camera would need to be tested anyway.

Milk crates Carl... I have so many super 8 cameras, I keep them in milk crates! LOL :P Though in all seriousness, I did buy a dozen super 8 cameras over the last few months for my school, so every kid could play with a camera and understand more about super 8... I think only half of them even fire up when you put batteries in them. HA! I recently helped a friend shoot 12 rolls of Super 8 with my Yashica... purposely pulled out of my inventory because I knew it would generate the best "super 8" look and it sure did!

It's a very interesting conundrum. The IMAX website lists the Rogue One screenings as "Laser Digital 3D" The Fandango website lists Rogue One IMAX screening as "IMAX 3D" The AMC website lists the Rogue ONE IMAX screening as "IMAX 3D" However... the specific website for the theater doesn't even LIST IMAX 3D at all! It simply says 'IMAX' which I assume is 15/70. So this was a HUGE marketing fail by IMAX and it just shows you how they're willing to lie to customers in order to push film away. This isn't the first time I've seen this happen. They did the same thing with 'Interstellar' saying it was "laser IMAX" where it was clearly 15/70.

Right, but if that's what a $499 - $799 NEW super 8 camera can produce... why bother buying one? My Yashica Electro 800 from the early 80's, doesn't look much different.

Roger expressed his view point on the larger imager Alexa 65 in 2015 before they went into production on Blade Runner. It was clear he wasn't that interested in the new box of tricks because it added post workflow headaches and he didn't see the necessity of the larger, higher resolution imager. Yet Arri claims the movie is shot with the 65 and so do the press releases. Not that it's a big deal, but it's just an interesting side note because that would mean non-anamorphic, which is a staple of the Blade Runner and in my eyes, critical to it's look. It's clear the cinematography will be spherical on the movie, which is unfortunate. Deakins isn't really an anamorphic guy anyway, he likes things clean.

If it's gonna be flawed, let it be flawed. Don't try to make it great through fancy new cameras and scanning technology. My beef is all this new tech that leads to the same image because Kodak hasn't bothered to make the format anything different.

Right from IMDB: Arri Alexa 65, Hasselblad Prime 65 Lenses Arri Alexa XT Studio, Zeiss Master Prime Lenses

Optical would be "mechanical" in my book. I was thinking "electronic" stabilization would mean zooming up the image in post, finding a reference spot and stabilizing it, after scan. If the ScanStation does this in real-time whist scanning, it's a moot issue. Only, I have yet to see evidence of the fix removing the issue entirely. All the video's I've seen have been stabilized in post. Sure and there is no good reason for their design. If Kodak want's super 8 to catch on, they have to put more effort into their re-branding, which means making it better then it's been before.

Right, you need "electronics" to fix the problem with the perforations being made wrong. In my book, if every single roll of film has bad perfs, that's an issue with the format, not the scanner. All your doing is compensating for manufacturing issues inherent with the format. Again, I'd like to see some material with this issue fixed.

Field of view was the only real way to tell. Yep it sure is and MOST digital cinema projectors don't have enough dynamic range in the blacks to really make any difference. From full white to full black is only 20 - 40 degrees of movement on the mirrors. So that doesn't give you very much range. I saw the film on a Sony 4k projector at Arclight Cinemas and it looked muddy. Some of my projectionist friends commented on this same effect.

Yea, you found the problem, the viewer is zoomed up. My guess is, you by accident hit the z key and then clicked on the viewer. That enables the "zoom" function. It doesn't alter your timeline or media at all, you could export it all and it would be fine. The solution is to click in the upper right corner, there are two drop down menu's. The one on left should be set to "fit". If this doesn't work for some reason, simple activate the "zoom" control again by hitting the z key and when you drag over the window, your mouse will look like a magnifying glass. Then simply hold the option key down and click the mouse, it will zoom the image out. I tried to get my FCPX into the same mode yours is in, but I couldn't. I'm running 10.2.3 though so maybe we're on different versions.

Right, the rocking motion is an inherent issue with the format. So not only does the camera appear to have standard gate issues (the car shot jumps around), but even Kodak's test footage has the rocking boat syndrome. One would think they would have stabilized it in post. I have yet to ever see Super 8 material without the rocking boat syndrome. If you have any Perry, it would be cool to see.

Thanks for the upload Heikki. As I expected, doesn't look at all like the Logmar. The registration is all over the place, but it also includes the rocking boat syndrome. So the worst of both worlds... EEK! :(