Tyler Purcell

Sure and students are forced to work within the confides of the school program. I agree that as students of film are very into it during school. Very few of them will actually become filmmakers and those that do, will be forced to use the "norms" of filmmaking in order to make money. So it's great you're seeing people continue to use film after graduating from college. I would like to see what it's like 10 years down the road. Will they have enough clout to make that XYZ project on film. Once people have full-time jobs and/or constantly shooting digital projects (the norm), it's hard to fit in those film projects and they're generally just for fun in the long run. This is from my personal experiences and the people I talk with as well. Most of the people who rent equipment from me are "experimenting" with film, rather then using it for a commercially viable product that a wide audience will see, with financial gains. Sorry you feel that way... I spent my childhood and early adult life shooting Super 8 (and other film formats). I've shot hundreds of cartridges, I have a milk carton filled to the top of 50ft spools, some of which have been projected once or twice. Heck, I just helped shoot part of a new movie on Super 8 just this year. I have the right to comment about something I'm intimately familiar with. My point isn't to disparage the format, my point is that everyone talks this whole thing up as if it's some amazing new product that magically will make super 8 good. Yet I don't see it as such, I see it as a waste of money that SHOULD be spent on making better stocks for the professionals. I'm scared Super 8 may be Kodak's big fail and in turn, damage the professional level products, of which people like me use on a more regular basis. Yes this is an exciting time for "film" and we as filmmakers need to perpetuate the use of it for future generations. I believe the super 8 format in of itself, is incapable of achieving this goal due to the reasons mentioned above.

Naa... filmmakers tell stories. :)

Talk is cheap. If you gave all of those under 25's two rolls of film and a free camera. They'd shoot the sky, the ground, a tree, a building and their feet. After those two rolls were gone, they'd probably forget about processing them and forget about the camera. As you pointed out, I teach filmmaking to adults and youth. What I've learned is that there is absolutely some excitement building in the youth, especially millennial's. Yet, I personally haven't seen it grow in the same way you're thinking it would. With instant cameras and 35mm SLR's, yes... it's growing. With motion picture cameras, I haven't seen it yet. But my example of buying a $25 ebay camera and shooting two rolls of nothing, to never process it and forget where the camera is, that's a very typical situation for that age bracket AND unfortunately the format. When you have little to nothing invested in something, you will treat with little to no value. Kodak has been around for well over 100 years. The professional formats we currently use; 16mm, 35mm and 65/70mm have been around for almost the same amount of time. Mechanical cameras like the Bolex and single switch, motor operated projectors, will literally last for our lifetime and probably three or four generations. The only real deciding factor for their failure is mistreatment, rather then simply failing sitting on a shelf. My goal is to keep companies like Kodak in business and healthy. My goal is to present film in the highest quality possible, which attracts people to the format. When young filmmakers watch a well photographed film print, they're wowed. I know... I've done it. When they see their own work projected on film, they're inspired. They aren't inspired when it doesn't look good, they turn off right away. I know... I've tested this. They're so use to iphones looking great, if you give them something that looks worse then their phone, they simply turn off. You have to show them something extraordinary to stay on board, to keep Kodak and the film world alive because they ARE the next generation. If you turn them off with formats like Super 8 that look worse then their iphone (in most cases), they won't care. They will simply give up because we are growing a culture of people who are looking for the easiest way out. Shooting on film is a nuisance to them, but worth it for that beautiful image. This is why I don't teach anyone with super 8 cameras. It's why I work with fine grain stocks. It's why I project everything, not just digitize it. It's why our classes also work with 35mm, because quality means A LOT. Today, many of the filmmakers who grew up shooting film are still alive. In the next 50 years, most of us will be gone and solving that problem now, is the most important thing in my mind. It's not weird at all... once you digitize film, it no longer retains the aesthetic. I can take any raw digital cinema camera source and mimic the film aesthetic through using softer glass and post processes. Heck, there are even plugins that look more like "classic" super 8 then shooting real super 8. Film is a photochemical process and if you aren't projecting a photochemically made print, you've lost it's TRUE aesthetic. This is why I'm very upset about Kodachrome and Ektachrome disappearing, they were the true aesthetic of the super 8 format. Shooting modern super 8 stocks and scanning them, defeats the purpose of shooting film in the first place... outside of Perry's example of holding onto family memories for longer then a hard drive. Yet, by saying that, he actually proves my case that Super 8 is still and always will be a consumer format. Designed for snap shots of life, rather then professional productions. Sorry for the long post guys... I just wanted to clear some things up.

I spent a while reading through Santo's posts, but the net result is the physical format itself limits the quality. Only one-off cameras like the Logmar (50 made) and high-end digital scanners, can truly make a decent image out of the format. Yes, Santo's comments (like mine) are extremely valid, but in the end it's still a very flawed format. So no matter what add-on's you use, metal backplate, better glass, lower ISO stocks, high-end scans, the format's "issues" shine through. So arguing about the "quality" of super 8 is silly, you can dress the pig in sheep's clothing, but it's still a pig. You argue that people want to use super 8 for the esthetic value right? But Super 8 in it's essence is a Kodachrome format using a film projector for presentation. It has been this way since it first hit the market in 1965 until it's demise in the late 90's. So when people shoot modern stocks with Super 8 and make them digital, they look nothing like the "classic" look of Super 8. I'm completely ok with a one-stop Kodachrome model. I'm not ok with a completely closed MODERN STOCK format because as I just pointed out, anyone who shoots on super 8 today, couldn't possibly be looking for any artistic esthetic since modern negative stocks look nothing like Kodachrome. So people shooting modern negative, are most likely going to need a more professional workflow. When working professionally with film, you need to have a direct connection to your lab. You need to be on the horn with them the moment it's processed to insure there are no problems. Lab reports are very critical to working with film because you don't know if a camera had a problem until it's through the soup. So again, since people can't be using modern super 8 negative for esthetic reasons, since it looks nothing like the format of the past, they must be using it for more commercial/professional reasons. As Perry pointed out, he works with a lot of professional people and they need a professional lab to discuss things with during production. You can't just "send your film" away and hope it comes out. The Kodachrome model is for consumers, it's for people shooting home movies (which is who the format was initially designed for) and it works great. Nobody took it seriously (until now evidently) and it was inexpensive, so it didn't matter if nothing came out. When you're spending 16mm money on a smaller, less quality format, with less professional support, it's even more critical to have a lab report insuring density is up to snuff. Kodak's one lab model is great for home movie shooting consumers, but not for professionals. This has been my whole argument from the beginning. It by the way, fits the topic 100%. My fear has nothing to do with monopolizing. It has to do with failure and what happens if they buy all the good labs and eventually can't afford to run them anymore. My point is why bother. Nobody should be making a NEW film camera today, it's silly. If you WERE going to spend the money, why not do it to a format that actually has some quality to it. Kodak is not making the new camera for people who already shoot super 8. They are making the new camera for people who don't currently shoot super 8, to get them excited about film. When they shoot with the camera and (my assumption is) the results aren't up to the quality they expect, the camera will just sit on a shelf as a novelty item. If Kodak had invested in making a new MOS 16mm camera (100ft daylight spools), a format that looks WAY better then Super 8, where you can make MORE mistakes, where you can run a higher ISO stock to shoot in more natural lighting without the crazy image noise, then people may have been more receptive. Especially as I've pointed out many times, S16 stock, processing and transfer is less expensive per finished minute of material. Again, this is all just a "concern" about Kodak's concept, which is 100% on topic. As a side note... Remember digital bolex? They sold lots of them, but it was just a toy for retro folks and it wasn't high quality. The company folded this year because once all those people who wanted something cool to play with bought the camera, there was nobody else left to buy. Serious filmmakers didn't want to risk it because the feature set wasn't there and amateurs/hobbyists didn't want to spend the exorbitant amount of money. Wait... you can get a Beaulieu 9008 for around the same price as Kodak's new camera. Why would you ever want that Kodak plastic brick when you could have the Beaulieu? Again, ANYONE entering such a saturated market, full of low-cost product, is insane. Kodak only did it to generate BUZZ, that's it. I have three of them and they all work great. None have ever been taken apart, but all three I used on a recent production and using the last batch of Agfa Reversal we could find, looked super retro with the crappy glass, shitty cartridge plastic back plate, poor automatic exposure and reversal look. The director was trying to match material shot in the 80's and it got very close, but it needed to be degraded and colored. My Bolex EBM I bought from a yard sale. I've shot a few thousand feet through it and the stuff looks great. Not a SINGLE problem, which is quite amazing. My Aaton LTR was from Ebay, but I saw it before I bought it. It's been on dozens of projects including two features since my purchase and it looks flawless, so do the almost 30 year old Gen I optar illumina primes and Zeiss 12-120 zoom. So I personally haven't experienced the poor 40 year old cameras. Like anything, if you research and know anything about cameras, you can find great deals and probably something that works acceptably for $35 - $50 USD in the world of Super 8. Will it? My engineering experience says no way. The Kodak camera is far too complex. One splash of water, one drop onto the sidewalk, one freezing night, you can kiss it all good bye. The ol' mechanical cameras of the past, are pretty robust. Not talking about the 80's plastic one's, talking about the metal one's from the 70's and prior. Where the manufacturer sold tens of thousands, making revisions every once in a while. Again, 100% on topic... There is a very low likelihood this new Kodak camera will outlast a 40 year old camera. They won't sell enough of them to warrant constant updates and changes, plus the cost to support them is going to be astronomical. Currently, film is only sold directly from Kodak in the US. You have to send them a PO, wait a few days for it to be approved and then drive over to Kodak's shipping center to grab it, OR wait for it to show up via post. If Kodak wants super 8 to take off, they will need to sell it in other places for discount rates. My comment about retail establishments was including online vendors. Though we still have good ol' camera stores in the US.

When you look at the over all film market, how many NEW feet of film are sold, how many NEW feet of film are processed and transferred, etc... The Super 8 market is the smallest by a HUGE margin. There is more Super 16 purchased, shot and processed on ONE feature film per year, then there is for all Super 8 projects. Super 8 was the polar opposite of a niche market when I was a kid, everyone has a film camera and they used'em on a regular basis. Heck, I could walk into my local CVS and buy not only Kodachrome and Ektachrome, but also sound film in both formats. That's 4 different choices at ANY local drug store, right next to the video tapes. It's true that Super 8 market kinda died and has been reinvented thanks to modern stocks and better scanners. Yet it's nowhere near the market it USE to be.

HA, yea I agree. If you're shooting on Super 8, you are doing it for convenience. Real filmmakers find the money to shoot on more respectable formats.

Exactly my point... $13.50 is a reasonable price for a format that doesn't deliver the quality of the current pricing structure. Exactly... As I pointed out above, Super 8 today is actually MORE EXPENSIVE to work with then Super 16 per finished minute of footage.

Hey Robert, what do you think about doing a 4k workflow from start to finish with a 4k laser out to 35mm? Do you guys have a machine that can do that, or do you think an entire 2k workflow would be sufficient? I gather most DI films printed to 35mm were mostly 2k anyway eh?

Personally, I'd do a complete digital workflow on Super 16 these days. Cutting 16mm negative requires special expertise (expense) and more time then 35mm due to the A/B roll nature of the format to cover splices. Optical printers inherently soften the image and CAN add dirt/noise to the image if not in the best condition. Doesn't matter how you cut the film, on 16 or digital, the photochemical finish process is the same. Keycode numbers on the side of the film (and in the Avid editing system) identify a particular frame's relative location. Once edited, the negative would be A/B roll cut and an answer print on 16mm would be made to check everything. After that, you would make a 35mm interpositive and color the film during that blow up process. All of your work from there on would be in the world of 35mm, which again is expensive. You could also strike a 16mm Interpositive and then make a 35mm blow up internegative, but that leads to less over-all quality. My suggestion is to scan all the negative at 4k, cut the film digitally and then conform back to the 4k. Then spend all that money you would have on the blow up and 35mm answer printing/photochemical coloring process, on the laser out. The quality of a 4k digital scan, color and laser out to 35mm is FAR superior. This one of the rare cases where doing a digital finish of something shot on film, does absolutely look better then the photochemical process.

So they actually struck prints directly off the negative because there were so few that needed to be made or was it a quality thing? Would they have made an IP then an IN like we do today as well, or would that have not been as widely done with 70mm? Also, for reduction prints, would an IP have been made directly off the OCN? I assume with a 1968 release of 2001, the 35mm prints were 2.20:1 anamorphic right?

But there is no magic.

It's all about aspect ratio. If your product is 1.85:1, why not deliver it in 2k? The whole point of the format is to accommodate for that aspect ratio. If the product is 1.78:1, then you'd use 1080 as a delivery format. Televisions are generally 16x9 so if you delivered 2k, there would be bars at the top and bottom to match the 1.85:1 aspect ratio.

Correct me, but technicolor only made 35mm machines for their process right?

When I say "elements" I mean lab photochemical elements, as in the internegative.

It's very hard to translate your posts at 1am in the morning. I'm not an english major and no matter how many times I read your sentences, it only makes for greater confusion. Ahh, see this is the confusion. I'm trying to stick to the topic of Kodak's closed-door model vs other alternatives. Kodak's model will be less expensive then the current model available. It will also probably be higher quality, using scanners instead of telecine machines. The current model for Super 8 is pretty expensive and at least out here, the shops don't treat it with the same care as 16 or 35. SO yes, the steps are the same, but the level of control the user is involved with, is reduced under the Kodak model. This already exists... Kodak isn't doing anything unique. Most smaller labs offer a film + process + transfer price. So anyone who wants to dive into Super 8, can do so already without Kodak's involvement. All Kodak brings to the table are new films, marketing and perhaps putting Super 8 cartridges back at retail camera stores, rather then speciality shops. Actually, I think that's exactly what will happen and I think it's their intention. The pricing for Super 8 is out of control right now, labs are charging exorbitant amounts of money and Kodak wants to reign that in. The problem is, Kodak is putting all the eggs in their basket and that's scary. But it does and here is why... Kodak can't survive off manufacturing and processing a million feet of film per year. They'd be out of business. So Kodak either needs to sell 10x the amount of Super 8 film they currently sell, or they're in trouble. By contrast, 16mm and 35mm sell hundreds of millions of feet per year. These and the larger 65mm and 70mm formats, are the reason Kodak stays in business. When you go to the movie theaters and see something shot on film, when you watch TV and see something shot on film, when you watch older movies at home and see something shot on film, you are 99.95% of the time seeing 16, 35, 65/70. You may randomly catch an insert shot on a Music video shot on super 8. You may catch a commercial with a home-movie shot, made with super 8 equipment. You may even see an opening credit sequence for a television show shot on super 8. Unfortunately there just isn't enough feet of super 8 shot to make it anything else but a novelty format. If people all of a sudden started shooting features with it, the footage count would increase tremendously, but there would need to be A LOT of film shot to make it worth while for Kodak. So yes, the dichotomy I discussed very much exists today. My concern is that Kodak reduces the prices enough that other labs can't compete anymore and close down. My concern is that people buy this new Super 8 camera, not knowing what it's all about and dislike the finished results. My concern is that their investment doesn't pay off and eventually they close down the labs they bought recently. I'm only thinking long-term and I'm scared about the future with so much money invested in a format that will never make Kodak the money they need to survive. Not in my eyes. Kodak should have kept producing the Kodachrome chemicals and that should have been the format. It was mail-in, it was positive/projectable and it looked VERY retro. To me, the death of Kodachrome was the death of the format. There is a level of "acceptable quality" in the industry. Since I actually have to deliver content for archival (QC) and distributors on a regular basis, I've been told the spec countless times. If the QC software fails your product due to noise level, you have to do something about it. Well, if you shot on super 8 and that's your only deliverable option, you're in trouble. The amount of loopholes you've gotta go through will blow your mind, it's just insane. In fact, most distributors won't even take Super 16 anymore (BBC being the most recognizable of those), they feel it's too noisy for modern audiences. I have a feeling more and more distributors will follow suit and Super 16 will eventually turn into Super 8. Again... this is what separates the "consumer" from the "professional" formats. It doesn't matter who makes the rules, if you're constantly having to fight them, you will eventually not bother on the next show and shoot in a different format. 9 times out of 10, the reason people use narrow gauge formats is due to cost savings. When you're shooting an 80+ minute product @ 10:1 ratio, you're burning through roughly 28,000ft of film on super 16, but more like 58,000ft with 3 perf 35mm and 90,000ft on 4 perf 35mm. Even if film and equipment price between 16 and 35 was identical, 35mm is exorbitantly more money to process AND transfer. I prep budgets on a monthly basis for people shooting film and the raw stock/processing/transfer difference between Super 16 and 3 perf 35mm is around $40,000 USD. You can cut $10k off that with short ends, but even $30k is a lot and you still have to rent a 3 perf camera because they're still too much money to own. So no, 35mm is more expensive then 16mm no matter how you tweak the numbers, no matter what format (2 perf, 3 perf, 4 perf) you use, it's ALWAYS going to be more money. With super 8, ya can't get short ends to help reduce cost. Stock and processing is around $45 per 2.5 minute cartridge. So that's $193 dollars for 11 minutes (400ft 16mm equivalent). Even with NEW stock from Kodak ($125/roll) you're still only looking at $173 for 11 minutes processed. Transfer is generally the same price for both formats as well. So you can see right away, there is NO financial benefit to super 8. Why invest in something that ISN'T going to solve the glaring problems with the format? Cost vs performance. There are MILLIONS of perfectly good super 8 cameras that work great. You can nab them on ebay for peanuts and they will all give you that "retro" look. I equate Super 8 to video formats like Hi8. No matter how good the camera is, no matter how good you lens is, no matter how clean your heads are, no matter how good the tape stock is, the format still has the same look. So having a "special" camera defeats the purpose entirely. So why put in all the effort and spend all the money? Kodak hopes it will promote film to a new audience, but will it? Will young people who buy Kodak's camera and use their processing, actually become filmmakers using bigger formats in the future where Kodak actually makes their money? Or are people who shoot super 8, only use it for the "retro" look and could care less about using the other formats? I sadly think MOST people who shoot super 8 are doing it for the look. So it's a HUGE risk for Kodak and the industry for that matter. Kodak is notorious for taking risks and failing. If they fail this time around, they may kill film off entirely. All they NEEDED to do was support pre-existing labs and lower the price on stock to more competitive levels. They had no reason to make a new camera that does nothing for the format.

Without pulling the film out from the cartridges plastic backplate, there isn't any way to solve the problem. The only "solution" is to make an all-new cartridge with a higher quality backplate.

Sure, used for the "retro" look and art-house appeal. Then you think, my S16 camera alone shoots around 10,000 feet a month easily.

What's the point of going to school if the skills you learn have no relevance in the real world? Working with Super 8 maybe great for "experimental artists", but if you're going to school for experimenting, you are wasting money. You can experiment with a $100 camera investment and a good book to teach you the basics. What makes programs like the one I teach at AND the film schools around the globe so vital, is the access to professional equipment and the teaching of how to work in a professional environment. If those aren't important, join a film club and make experimental art films that nobody will see whilst you work making $10.00 hr. Most of us go to school to get the education necessary to make real money. Ya ain't gonna learn that with a fully automatic super 8 camera. One price, but also "hands off" from the consumers point of view. You don't sit down with the colorist to make your footage look good. You don't get a print to project either. Kodak has turned super 8 into a video cassette. Shipping the film to Kodak is like sending a video tape out to be ingested into an editing system since today, nobody has decks anymore. Also... most labs package film, processing and transfer. The difference is, you the filmmaker, controls the entire process from start to finish. With the super 8 program, the consumer only can select what film they use. Umm... yea, welcome to a hands-off consumer system. Offer the entire package, someone will bite. However, I personally don't believe it will drive up sales of the format to the level Kodak probably assumes it will. People who are already shooting super 8 will benefit, but that number is very small. In fact, I don't personally know a single person who shoots super 8 outside of projects I'm personally involved with. I know people who own super 8 prints, but none of them have ever contemplated using the format for acquisition. By contrast, my Super 16 package is constantly being borrowed by random filmmakers. In the last 30 day's, it's been on 5 shoots outside of my own and I've shot with it two days. Yet my 3 super 8 camera's, sit idle because nobody cares. Whatever Kodak does with the format, it will still be subpar over the long term. Super 16mm is a far superior format in every way outside of the physical camera size. It's twice the resolution, it's more stable, it's practically silent, there are better and more available lenses made for the format and as I've said many times, cost per minute of finished material is about equal to super 8, minus the cost of equipment which of course is more expensive. In my eyes, if you plan on making movies on film, you want a format that's large enough and moves fast enough that working with it by hand (editing a finished product) and projecting it, still looks acceptable. Real film nuts, want to project they have no interest in digital nonsense. I've never had a problem finding film online or locally. I've never had a problem shipping film to other labs. I've never had a problem with quality from labs either. The film workflow in the US is pretty good, though I will admit, rather slow. For a price... You can get a Super 16 K3 brand new from Russia for $250 bux shipped to the US. Spinning mirror reflex Super 16 camera that sure, is wind up, but man far better image quality even with the stock lens. If Kodak was making a super tiny hand-held super 8 camera like the little one's from the 70's and 80's for $99 bux, then I get it. But for $499 - $799, you can get one heck of a REAL camera shooting a REAL format, where the finished product isn't a novelty. I guess to wrap up this post... I personally have never liked super 8. The mere essence of the format is the lowest-quality possible, that's why it exists. I personally don't live my life by working with the lowest quality anything. When I shoot film, I shoot S16 or better. When I shoot digital I shoot 1080p or better. When I work with audio, I use high quality mic's and 24/192 converters. In my mind, there is no reason to waste time unless the results are going to be decent. Maybe that's why I don't produce a lot of product myself, I want to work with the best. In the best terms, Super 8 is a novelty film format in the year 2017. People who use it, shoot with it for novelty value, not for creating a product that will forward their career as filmmakers. You aren't going to put some super 8 snips on your demo reel. You may however put some clips from your K3 on there or any other 16mm camera because it withstands the test of time FAR better. Furthermore, I have yet to see anyone truly make a great product with the super 8 medium. I've heard of stuff, I've even caught glimpses of "test" material, but not a final product to watch. Everything online is "test" material and in my book, when all you do is run around playing with cameras, you are simply wasting time and money. Once you've shot your friends, family and maybe some ducks, the novelty has worn off. The camera will sit on shelf or in a bag or in an attic, it won't be used. This is my "beef" with the format and where Kodak is going. They SHOULD have made a low-cost Super 16 camera, that would have been a HUGE market.

Interesting, I didn't know some of the OCN was replaced with dupes. So it's in THAT bad of shape eh?

Yep, the American Cinematheque owns the print (they own two theaters here in LA), so nobody else will be able to project it.

I must confess, I'm really not that a big fan of 2001, even though Kubrick is my all-time favorite filmmaker by leaps and bounds. I enjoy ALL of his movies, even though 2001 is my least favorite. With that said, I have extreme interest in the movie technically, not just visually, but also the technology depicted in the film. So when I heard American Cinematheque were paying for a new print of 2001, I was very excited. I was told the print would be made from the same elements used to make the 90's print's, which were all destroyed so watching 2001 on 70mm in recent years has evidently been a bad experience. The print made it's debut at a Vienna 70mm festival a few months ago, even though it as made here in L.A. by fotokem. Evidently it finished with a standing ovation thanks to it bringing back a quality not seen in over a decade. The print then made it back to the US for a one-off screening in November with the cast of the movie at the Egyptian, which I was told is the first time it played here in the states. The American Cinematheque owns the print, but they also don't want to destroy the print. So they want to keep it alive, which means not playing it much. This weekend was the first open screenings and I had to go. Of course, I arrive right on time, traffic in Hollywood was a mess as always. The Egyptian has an "open booth" policy, if you know where it is. I'm lucky because I know two of their projectionists and as I sad down to start the screening, I turned back and my buddy Mike was running the show, which meant I could go back and see him at any time. The film... ohh gosh... the film was stellar. The colors were so vibrant and very 60's looking, much more so then the BluRay. What amazed me was how much detail there was in the image, stuff I had never seen before. Yet, everything looked fantastic, the few issues in the screening were all related to the original source, rather then the projected print. The latter part of the film with all those deep red scenes, were just amazing. The color reproduction is so vibrant and beautiful, with soft tones instead of the harsh tones you get from digital projection. The color separation was also superb, something you rarely see in a modern screening. What surprised me (as did my recent screening of Lawrence of Arabia on 70mm) is how NOISY the film is. The digital releases don't have any of the noise level of the 70mm print. That just shows how much cleanup work they did to make the digital release. It didn't bother me as much as Lawrence because it was less noticeable over-all, but it was still there. Also, many of the process shots were far noisier and there were instances of contrast changes between shots, which leads me to believe maybe some shots were underexposed slightly and were brought up photochemically to compensate. This was most noticeable in the final sequence where the lead goes from young to old. The projection was also very good, though I did notice some registration issues, they were NOT the projectors. The issues were clearly imbedded in the original source as they came and went based on individual shots. This was really interesting because one would think Kubrick wouldn't have liked those issues and done anything he could to remove them, yet there they were. During the intermission, I popped into the booth to see Mike and say Hi. I walked straight into a conversation he was having with Rita Wilson and Tom Hanks had just came out of the bathroom. Mike recognized me right away and we shook hands, but I got to spend a few minutes talking with them about the film and the projection booth, since I know quite a bit about the booth. I honestly didn't expect to see anyone in the booth but mike, I wouldn't have gone if I knew he was with people, but alas I interrupted and had a nice 10 minute conversation with them before Mike started up the latter half. So that's my story and I think if you live in the US, you've gotta make the trek to see this thing before the print is damaged. Something will eventually happen to it and the deal is only 5 years, so there is some limitations on what they can do. I'm excited that they're thinking about doing the same thing with Lawrence and Vertigo, two of my favorite movies. I'm planning on helping them with their campaign to bring back these 70mm classics. Visit the American Cinematheque calendar (http://americancinemathequecalendar.com/) to see screening dates. You can also visit my facebook page https://www.facebook.com/celluloiddreaming/ to see a video clip.

All I know is that my gaffer goes to the 99 cent store and comes back with these cheap Chinese mirrors that aren't made of glass. He drills holes in the top and bottom to attach clamps that he gets at home dept. They're like clamshell speed rail clamps, but they're adjustable and have a metal screw end for mounting. This way, he can use a C stand or combo stand as the way to mount them. The point is that you can take ONE SOURCE of light and simply move the mirrors around to create the look. Bending the mirrors focuses intensity or disperses it, usually in a pretty cool pattern, which is more akin to light hitting a window and reflecting off things like a shade. Square shapes are great for a key but they aren't great for lighting the background. I personally like using diffusion as my key source, so one mirror will head towards that diffusion and the other one's will simply fill in the room. Rob went so far as to hang mirrors behind people and bounce light back towards them. I never went THAT far, favoring a single tungsten as backlight vs another mirror. It already takes up a lot of time to setup the mirrors, trying to get another run out of them is hard, it just takes a bigger crew then I've ever had. For the background, I'll usually have the gaffer put a gobo or filtration of some kind on the outgoing side of the mirror, so we can manufacture a look. I don't remember trying to twist the mirrors, but when I was a kid, I learned this trick from Rob Hahn (thanks to an AC article). He used it on a few films including 'The Score' and I really liked it. So I practiced it for quite a while, using it in several fun projects, though nothing really commercial until I moved to LA. My first feature as a cinematographer 'Sweet Potato Pie' was the first time I used it on a real movie. We rented an 18k HMI, put it outside of the house we were shooting at and used mirrors to bounce the light around instead of putting lights inside the house. The critical part was being able to create cool patterns in big rooms. I used it again on the producers next film 'Out on Parole' but the producers and I had a falling out (didn't pay the agreed amount) and I haven't been able to find a copy of either movie. It's been 12 years since I made those two features and since then, I haven't really needed to use this trick. The short film I just finished, is literally the first time I've worked on a fully budgeted narrative project in a decade (I've been shooting documentaries, industrials and commercials). I'm crossing my fingers that in 2017 I'll be on a big enough shoot where we have the time to use this trick and I can make a little video on how it works. I'm just so busy, I simply don't have the time to produce a product that's worth while. I will put it on the list to do though because it's a great trick to have in your bag of tricks.

Theater chains dumped them to auction houses to recoup. There are TUNS of them sitting in warehouses. I bet older one's were literally dropped into dumpsters for insurance money. I'm sure some theaters have them tucked into a corner of the booth. I've seen platter systems still setup, even though there is a gaping hole where the 35mm projector use to be. Here in Hollywood, the big chains no longer have film projectors, but the smaller theaters do. The newer complexes never had them! :(

You need to run 3 lines, two for the waist and one for the back. This requires quite a rig and I'd be scared to suggest any method other then the proper one because it's easy to get hurt and potentially die. I have zero experience building the rigs, I only know the post process to get rid of the wires.

Umm, I personally don't think so. The Kodak camera doesn't have a viewfinder. You will also not learn much about professional filmmaking using one. This is why schools that still use film, teach with professional formats like 16mm and 35mm. The Kodak camera is no different then a camcorder in my book. You push in a cartridge and you've got a little LCD display showing you the shot with all the numbers you need to set exposure, without learning how to use a light meter. It's basically the LEAST professional camera on the market. This is EXACTLY the market Kodak is tapping. Thanks to the "video centric" nature of the camera, it's designed specifically for those youtube guys wanting to shoot something different. This is why they showed the camera at CES, the consumer electronics show, right down the hall from GoPro. It's also why they're doing a one-stop service for people, where they pay one price and get back their film on files, not a positive for projection. The market is 100% consumer level. I bet people who buy this camera will put it on a shelf in their living room because it looks cool. I bet most of the owners could care less about the cost associated. The people I talked with at Cinegear at the Kodak booth in 2015, were all rich guys wanting a new toy. I bet someone makes a feature with one right away, just because "it's retro" and no other reason. I agree, I don't think those things will happen. Kodak has no interest in striking prints from your negative either. Their business is film manufacturing, process and scan.