Tyler Purcell

16mm Bolex's do not have a polished silver plate in the Rex series, they are one of the only camera systems (besides super 8 of course) that will not in any way be effected.

The emulsion is the same, so why would bleach bypass be different?

Well, the issue is actually probably not as bad with the SR as other cameras. The Aaton's would have vertical lines off to one side. At least the square box in the middle, may not be that noticeable, but again only if you direct light straight at the camera would you sever see it. I like working on the SR's, they are well made and easy to work on cameras. I just don't like the fact every single sample I work on, has issues related to poor storage and wear and tear. I see a lot of Aaton's, they just don't fatigue as much, I rarely see a pechan prism go bad, but on SR's it's two or three a year. I've replaced 2 in the 4 years I've been doing service on Aaton's and probably a dozen on SR's. Heck, I've been lucky and been able to sometimes pull the pechan apart and clean it up, but you can't undo the glue on the critical section. It's really a nightmare to deal with. Other than that, I do like them. I just prefer a more modern, lightweight and quieter camera system, but that's a preference and one that some people can't afford, so I get it.

Yes, the SR's will have a major problem because the center is chrome and the outside is black, so you will see a literal square of reflective material that doesn't exist around the outside. The high speed cameras are 100% chrome. They will EVENTUALLY dump the remjet film, but for the time being they're still making it because they haven't released the new film as a finished product. IDK why because they do have lots of stock. Maybe they're wanting to continue testing? What I know is that halation will be worse IF you're pointing a light directly at the lens. In those rare situations, it can be problematic. I don't think it's a deal killer for MOST production, but it's something to think about. Yes, from my understanding the 235, 435, 535, Arricam's, moviecams, Panavision, Aaton's and likewise, pretty much every more modern 35mm camera, has a chromed pressure plate. Same goes for all the IMAX and 65mm cameras. So the problem is pretty vast. Arri did make special pressure plates for some of the cameras to deal with black and white film, but seeing as everyone is freaking out about this issue and so far the testing is pretty conclusive that black pressure plates DO solve the potential halation issues, the only real solution would be to coat the pressure plates black of pretty much every camera made. I have a feeling the reason Kodak hasn't just cut off production of the now older remjet film is simply because they're waiting to see how things go and if the industry can get things fixed fast enough.

There is a chemical process that can strip the chrome off, but after that, creating a black and smooth surface is the hard part. We have done some testing with paint on bad plates, but haven't been able to polish enough to prevent scratching long-term. They really need that chrome surface. We're working on it, but please feel free to reach out if you have any ideas as well. We just want to come up with a generic and easy solution to modify the OG plates because machining new ones, where it may sound simple, the tolerances are challenging and costly due to the materials used. Removing the chrome and painting/polishing seems to be the best option thus far, but it's not working yet.

One of the films that shot with it, was really upset. I have heard several reports saying the expected results were outside of where they tested/expected. I also think those 3 big films, probably used black and white pressure plates, which are not chromed. We will be getting film shortly, but I'm waiting to do a test until we have a solution to the pressure plate situation. We have ideas, but it's going to be a chemical fix which we don't know will work yet.

I forgot to shoot last night, I'll try again tonight, busy night fixing cameras!

Not replace, remove. Yes there have been multiple other threads about this. They are still making remjet film for now, but it will probably cease production at some point.

Easy! I can throw the raw file on dropbox for ya.

I will shoot something tonight for ya, we just got working cards Saturday and had a busy weekend. I will just shoot some B-roll and post it. Thanks for hitting me up!

Yea it was for sure a record out. Dailies dirt would be white, not black as it was shot on negative. That's why I'm so confused. But yes, as a filmmaker who shoots on film nearly exclusively, my dust busting pass is pretty important. Where most people may not even see the issues, I absolutely do and will make sure whatever I release, is wicked clean. So won't any other major film release.

Interesting, so you think they added dirt. Where I saw it on 70mm, I didn't find it overly dirty. Most of the dirt was black dirt, which would be akin to print dirt. Maybe they scanned a print as the DI master? The rest of your comments fall in line with my problems, I may just be too stupid to understand why I needed to sit through 3 hours of people talking, shot primarily on 3 perf 35mm, without a 3rd act and at the end (epilogue) the film pleads to the audience for forgiveness. Umm, yea I think it will be forgotten soon enough, which is unfortunate because the cast did a great job, even if the script was all over the place character wise.

Yea, I've shot a bunch of NC500 and even tho it's bitterly crap and shouldn't be used for anything since it has crazy emulsion inconsistencies AND doesn't even register properly in cameras, it for sure preferred 200ISO over the BOX rating of 400. With that said, many stocks do prefer to be over exposed, this isn't an unusual thing. It makes them a bit more crunchy contrast wise and pushes up the middle part of the curve just a tiny bit, which helps retain a bit more detail in the blacks. If you aren't dealing with direct sunlight or have anything where highlights will be a problem, over exposing by 1 - 2 stops does have an interesting look.

Bingo, can't beat the low-light potential of 220 degree shutter and F1.2 lens of my Elmo 1012XL. It can even properly expose 250D (uses 160 ISO setting, so it over exposes a bit) but it works great.

Well, unlike film, single ISO range imagers will have a fixed ISO. Many are 800, which would give the optimal amount of dynamic range in the highlights and blacks. Most cameras are pretty clean at 800, even older ones. When you increase the ISO, you're basically adding gain through the preamps and this will cause noise. The noise comes from many things, most of which is temperature. When things start to heat up a lot, they get noisy. This is why companies like Arri have developed very clever imager cooling systems, to help compensate. It's why smaller cameras like DSLR's which can't afford that luxury, resort to de-noising through clever image manipulation on the fly. When you record externally to raw through the HDMI, the signal is always WAY nosier than the internal compressed codec. On a compressed codec (non-raw) camera, you probably will want to use the ISO trick you explained to help retain DR in the highlights. If you're using a raw camera, the ISO can be changed in post. So if you shoot 1000 for instance, you're just under exposing the imager. You can do the same thing by shooting 800, just put the zebra's on and set them to 90% and if you see them, you're over exposed. That's a trick I've used for 30 years, it works really well to make sure you're not over exposing.

Yea, the Beaulieu's Achilles heal is low light, they have a much higher shutter speed than some of the other lower-end super 8 cameras. This means, they're really the worst camera for low light situations. Also, the built-in meter can be iffy if it hasn't been serviced/tested. I never trusted mine and my 6008 which I DO trust, at least over exposes instead of under exposes. Also, I'm not sure if the 4008 actually adjusts the meter properly for alternative FPS unless you're running the camera. I think it averages out the meter based on 18fps unless you're running. 250D isn't really a low light stock so with all the issues you've had with low light, meter and shutter speed of the camera, I don't think you'll get much but some reflective highlights, even if you push it. Even with 500T, the scenario you recounted above, is probably something I wouldn't attempt unless I had a faster camera system like 180 degree shutter S16mm.

Hey guys! I have a wide range of ground glasses for sale for Arri 35 A, B, C and 3, 435, 535, Arricam and SR/416. (pictures are just some samples) We have pretty much every shape and size imaginable, including a few very unusual ones like 2.40:1 Super 16 SR/416 and 3 perf 1.78:1 HD for Arricam. Plus if you're interested in "normal" 35mm or 16mm (1.33:1) ground glasses for any of the cameras above, we'll be heavily discounting them, just because we have so many. Please DM me if you're interested, or email info@narrowgaugefilms.com. I will take fresh pictures and send them your way if interested. Here is the basic price breakdown and remember, no tax or fees, this is the price + $7.50 shipping to anywhere in the US or $35 shipping outside of the US. N16mm Arri SR and 416 1.33:1 with TV safe $250 S16mm Arri SR and 416 1.66:1 with TV Safe = $500 Arri SR and 416 2.40:1 wide screen with TV safe = $800 3 perf Arricam 1.78:1 3 perf S35mm with glow mask = $1000 Arricam 2.40:1 3 perf S35mm (common top) no glow = $800 Arri 435 and 535 1.85:1 3 perf N35mm with glow mask $500 4 perf: Arri 35 A, B, C and 3; 1.33:1 Normal 35mm =1.33:1 $100 Arri 35 A, B, C and 3; 2.40:1 Squeed Anamorphic = $250 Arri 35 A, B, C and 3; Super 35mm any aspect ratio $150 4 perf Arri 435 and 535 No glow mask (any type) $100/each Arri 435 and 535 with glow mask S35mm 1.33:1 = $200 Arri 435 and 535 with glow mask S35mm 1.78:1 or 1.85:1 $250 Arri 435 and 535 with glow mask S35mm 2.40:1 $250 4 perf Arricam N35mm 1.33:1 with glow mask $500 Arricam S35mm 1.33:1, 1.78:1 or 1.85:1 with glow mask $800 Arricam S35mm 2.40:1 with glow mask $900 I do have blanks for every system as well. Picture is just a sample of an Arricam one.

Slightly bad seal on the magazine is quite common, did you tape the edges?

I work with young people all the time and many of them are in your shoes, they've always wanted to be filmmakers and they simply don't have the wherewithal to make that career jump for whatever reason. For many, they maybe got sidetracked with a career, for others it was growing a family or even military service, which prevented it. The one thing in common with all of them is that spark, that need to do something creative and share the results with people, kinda like a dopamine release. The current landscape with filmmaking in the Untied States basically completely over saturated on the creator side with simply not enough distribution potential for everything that's being made. For every 1 feature film that makes it through from indy to some sort of limited distribution deal, there are thousands of others which are sitting on peoples computers, maybe on YouTube/Vimeo or ever worse; Tubi. The increasing liberal arts degrees and democratization of filmmaking through lowering the barrier of admission, have both destroyed what was left of the already dying film industry. When you see the top filmmakers like Steven Spielberg unable to find funding for personal projects and Disney unable to make anything that isn't some sort of reboot, sequel or live action version of a classic animation, you know the industry is dead. So if feature filmmaking is kinda out of the cards for 99.95% of people, what is in the cards? Well, I know it may sound stupid, but going out and shooting stuff with your Bolex with your friends and starting a YouTube channel discussing your experiences, may actually pay dividends in the future. It only takes one person to watch your work and say "hey, I like this guy" and suddenly you're working on that persons project. Youtube is a great resource and if you put some money into your work, make things look good, it's a great calling card, especially in the film world, which is full of people looking for that next 16mm artist. Being a "creative" is easy, just go and create. Making a career out of it, is early impossible today. In terms of making a career out of this; it's a slippery slope and the amount of ultra talented and top industry people sitting on the couch these days, would make you sick to your stomach. Many will take ANYTHING to just make some money and it's just going to get worse as the Untied States becomes a more toxic country to do business with. I foresee many of the great resources we once had for grants and production loans, going away. It's see many people selling all their equipment and leaving the industry because the work is so fickle for most people, it's hard to base one's financial life off it. Today everyone is being ULTRA frugal in what they do and how they do it, making shit with minimal to no crew, which means nobody is making a career out of those lower-end shoots, the very same ones we use to make our bread and butter from. It's all about who you know, what they need, your skills and what you're willing to do to help people. You could work for free helping people for a decade and still never get the ability to make money from your learned/earned time on set. I've seen this with so many friends of mine, people who still think that big job that will win them a career in the industry comes rolling around the corner and they'll snatch it up. Those days are long behind us today and it's worse in non-media cities than Los Angeles. At least here, there is plenty of actual work, it's just hard to make a career out of what remains. With all that said, many of us have resorted to having actual normal full time jobs and creating on the side. I spent 6 years as a freelancer, it was a great time, tho stressful financially and I was overjoyed when I was offered a full time job and money was no longer a factor in my life right before covid. Has the full time job prevented me from going out and making stuff? Absolutely not, in fact if anything I'm more creative because I don't have to worry about money as much, so I can toss quite a bit of my money directly at making products, which is really great. I count myself extremely lucky to have caught the very tail end of this dying industry and been able to re-brand myself very quickly due to prior experiences and it all worked out nicely. Covid was the end for so much work and now that AI has basically taken over the marketing business, I fear those jobs are also long gone. So I launched an industry adjacent business in 2023 which has been a great way to continue being creative AND at the same time, offer resources to many "film" people as well. Maybe one day I can retire off this business, who knows, but having been in your shoes, having switched industries from something that pays well to something that doesn't, I wouldn't recommend that to anyone. Focus on the money, don't allow your need to be creative, suddenly propel you into debt or into some sort of desire to do more, make more, be something you aren't for the sake of switching careers. Nobody is stopping you from making stuff right now, so just do it and enjoy yourself. Whatever happens next in your filmmaking life, is irrelevant, just enjoy creating and showing people your creations.

I scan to DPX and export Pro Res from there. Pro Res 4444, has full color data AND is 12 bit. Pro Res 422, has half the blue and red color data and is 10 bit. So to retain the quality of the DPX files, we generally deliver Pro Res 4444.

We do film restoration for a living here in Los Angeles California. We have a really nice automated process, which combined with a wet gate scan and very lightweight digital restoration, can give a pretty good result. We charge $.60 cents per foot for the picture and $.10 cents per foot for the sound for this process which includes full color restoration, picture cleanup (dirt scratches), sound sync and final Pro Res 4444 12 bit output files of any resolution you want. We normally do 4k workflows, but we can do 2k no problem. Turn around is quick, unless the film is damaged. Also if the scratches are deeper than our automated tools, we can use manual cleanup as well, but we charge per hour so that adds up a bit. In terms of making a new print, that's not a big deal. We have sources to achieve that no problem, including 16mm soundtrack. It's costly, around $350 per minute, but not difficult to do at all. Here is a sample of our automated service. It's not perfect, but it does a great job.

I mean, I just processed and scanned someone's film that had severe X-ray damage. It was sharp 50D and the camera worked flawlessly, but the film was trash and 100% a throw away due to the x-ray damage. I was so sad for the guy, I think he tried to save a few bux and bought film from another country and just the shipping back and forward from that country to his and then to me, was enough to get it zapped. Probably got zapped before the film was shot to be honest, at least it looked that way. So yea, even if you nail the camera and lens, you still gotta be careful. Here in So Cal, I can drive to Kodak, drive to Fotokem, drive home to scan and the film is never leaving my side. But imagine you're shooting somewhere remote and you're shipping? I have never wanted to take that risk on my own projects, we travel with ALL our film, which is risky as well. It requires a technique of keeping the film cold wherever you go and making sure it doesn't get any direct sunlight sitting in the car. So quite a bit of our car storage is gobbled up by a huge cooler, which has these frozen packs all around the film, just to keep it in the 60F range. Then whenever we stop for the night, we have to take it all inside, stick it all in a refrigerator and re-freeze the packs for the next day. It's a lot of work and in the end, it's why when shit works, our results are outstanding. As a tech, I'd say the majority of running cameras that have issues, are from Bolex cameras. I don't even advertise Bolex repair, but holy crap, 60 - 70% of the Bolex footage I scan and obviously the cameras I fix for people, it's mostly Bolexes that struggle the most. I think it's also because they're low entry cost, so people who may not know much about cameras own them, so they generally don't know what to look for and maybe it's their first or second roll of film ever? Still, because I process and scan film for people, I see lots of shit man. I just scanned a roll yesterday that had a light leak along the entire upper edge of the film, the whole roll. Yet, the 2nd roll, zero problems. Like WTF? It just grazed the image and the filmmaker was like "what the heck is that", I had never seen that one before, especially on ONE roll out of what, 5 or so? I could go on all day about Bolex cameras and Bolex issues, suffice to say, I do think user error is to blame for MOST of them, at the same time, it's still the highest amount of errors I see from WORKING cameras. Obviously, I serve Arri and Aaton cameras the most, because people who own those cameras want them to be in perfect working order for their shoots, not the same with Bolex owners. They only come to me when they're broken! LOL 😛

People buy cameras, they do tests, maybe a little single roll film with one of their friends and then they disappear. Few months later, they call me and wonder if I can help sell their camera. This is the trend I see more often than not, especially with lower end cameras. Usually people buying Arri SR's or Aaton XTR Prod's, know what they want, but the K3, Beaulieu, CP16, Bolex, Eclair, crowd, really is fickle. They want that look, but they don't understand it comes at a cost. I see them all the time because I service those cameras AND scan their film. So I stay in contact with those people and they're cool. There was a point a few years ago, that I was shooting S8 or 16mm every single week! That all dried up in 2024 and this year, it's been entirely dead thus far. I planned a road trip in 2021 to re-create a trip I did with my parents in 1990. The concept was to re-create the super 8 film I did back then, so we could make a short film about my history with the railroads we went to visit. I wanted to shoot on Ektachrome because we shot the original trip on Kodachrome and I wanted to project the material when it came back. Ektachrome has a lot of cartridge problems, but we did some camera tests before we left and got acceptable results, so we went with it. We also brought a bunch of 50D Vision 3 carts with us as well, so if something DID jam, we could keep shooting. We prepped the carts perfectly, the camera ran through each roll normally without any jamming. Yet, when we got the film back, it was basically trash. Every frame of the Ektachrome material was jumpy and un-projectable. The 50D stuff was 100% flawless, perfect in every way for Super 8. We even shot 100D and 50D on the same day and the Ektachrome was always trash. Sometimes when the pulldown would grab the film, it would skip a perf and it got into this weird cadence where it would just not pull down like the pressure plate was not keeping the film on the gate. So many shots just didn't exist, which was a real shame. In the end, we scrapped the entire idea because it cost us $10k to do the trip and we didn't get anything back that was really usable enough from being on the road, which was the whole point. I wanna say we shot 10 rolls of Ektachrome and 8 rolls of 50D? That was the last time I even attempted to shoot Ektachrome on super 8 and I simply won't ever recommend it to anyone. I just did a portrait shoot in Colorado this winter on my friends Pentax 465. We tested the camera first, worked flawlessly. We did the entire shoot on film, no digital what so ever. The color negative rolls came out great, the E6 rolls came out great, we had 2 rolls of black and white, one of them appeared to be ok tho for sure not nearly as good as we expected and the other one, was blank. Sadly, that blank roll, was the big portrait shoot roll. So we lost 17 pictures out of 100 or so, which may not seem like a lot, but when your paying $5k to get 100 pictures, (trip costs and such), you'd think at least there wouldn't be some technical issue. So we learned a lesson; don't trust film cameras. Shoot digital and use film as a backup, which basically means don't shoot film because we can only carry 1 big camera on these trips, seeing as I'm carrying my 16mm camera. In 2023 we shot some Fuji Velvia and Illford 3200 on 35mm, our normal shop that processed and scanned for us, didn't do a good job on those scans. So we sent just those 7 rolls to another lab who we had used just recently to process and scan the color negative from the same shoot. We walk in, pickup the negatives, drop off the already processed Velvia and illford film, they scan it in a few days, send us the files on the web and we immediately run to a shoot out of town for two weeks. We come back and drive over to collect, they're closed (they have weird business hours). Ok fine, no problem, we'll check them next week. We go back, new sign on the door "out of town for a week", ok fine. Another month goes by, we call them and they can't find the negatives. We drive over and they've fucking destroyed the film. Yea, they threw out our negatives, as their procedure is to destroy after 30 days. I was like guys, you were closed! The mother fucker shrugs and walks away. No sorry, nothing. My boyfriend was going to punch him in the face because the Velvia shots were supposed to be turned into slides for a presentation project we were working on, they were one off pictures, not easily re-creatable. What a fucking nut bust man so now I can't even trust the good labs. I made a post about this that went viral on social media and dozens of people came forth saying they had similar issues with labs they've used. So there ya go, three more stories of three projects that basically didn't get finished because I choose to focus on the look, rather than focused on being creative and getting the shot. In the end, the decision is to either be creative and come back with something OR focus on the look with the risk you won't get anything. Doing art projects is cool, but the majority of people want a perfect finished result this day and age. They love that film texture, but maybe not at the cost of it being screwed up. Now, I have shot a lot of film in the last 4 years, so maybe my stories are a consequence of that, but in the end, what's happened to me is unacceptable and I have dozens more stories like this.

Yea, I don't think more cooks in the kitchen would have helped much. I always do camera tests after lenses come back from service and they looked fine to me. I've had plenty of jams and mechanical issues on non-Aaton cameras, but my Aaton cameras have been stellar. People underestimate the waste, it's the biggest problem with film. You can't manage film stock use based on raw numbers, it doesn't work. If you have a 3 minute scene and 2 minutes of film left, you're not going to shoot with that roll and change it. That adds up and by the end of the shoot, you got dozens of little rolls you have no use for. You may get some money back selling, but from my experience, most of them are too small, 100ft or so and nobody wants them. Maybe if that happens once or twice, ok but that happens four times a day on a 35mm show. You need to re-load mags with fresh film and move on, you can't just leave mags hanging and you aren't going to re-load a 100ft roll, makes no sense, so it goes into a can and that's the end of that. The extreme waste throws the numbers off and by the time you have real data, you've already blown through your budget. Now, this is why I try to go for 10:1 minimum on film, because at least you've got some of that overage covered. Also, less dialog scenes the better, with MOS stuff, it's way easier to use up those little SE's.

Yes most main stream productions have no reason to shoot digital outside of convenience and confirmation they got the shot. They have the budget, they have the crew, most are close to a lab, etc. They shoot digital because it's simply convenient and being able to re-play to make sure they have the shot and actually gives some guarantee they'll have it when they get to the editing room is something you absolutely do not get with film in this day in age. Here are a few anecdotal things that I've had happen and seen on other peoples films in the last few years. This train film series we're doing, what a mess man. Our first shoot came out good, but nearly every shoot after that we had major issues. It started with a bad lens that was sent back to me from the lens service shop not working properly. Hard to tell in the ground glass because there is no way to actually magnifying and see what's going on, even though our test shoot came out great. Got the entire 12 x 400ft roll shoot back, half of it was out of focus on the edges at any focus length, but it was horrible and useless wide open. Go back in October, this time with a nicely collimated lens, serviced body, this is going to be perfect right? Na, now Kodak has a problem with the remjet and it leaves a rain effect on all 9 rolls. I had to digitally fix every single shot we used in the final piece and it destroyed the look of the film, it looks wrong. Ok so we go back the following year, this time with some new toys, film is good, but damn man we had some strange issue with a new lens that I'm working with. This lens has an odd back focus issue, but because it's a zoom and because it has manual back focus, somehow in shipping to the shoot, it was out of focus. Can't tell on a film camera on the wide shots if it's actually in focus or not, so we just went with it, whole thing is soft. This winter, shoot 9, was one of only 3 shoots for this film series that came out perfect. Same equipment and same film. That's a horrible ratio, had I shot with my iPhone, it would have all come out, every single frame. Ok Ok, so documenting one off things may not be the best, how about narrative? In the last few years I've shot 4 narrative and 1 documentary project on 35mm with my own equipment. Two of the narratives I shot, two different labs destroyed part of the footage, both were top labs in the US. So both films were heavily altered to compensate because I could not afford a complete reshoot of those missing scenes. This meant, all the hard work and money we put in, went out the door. Had it been digital, zero problems, I'd be proud of those films and maybe even submit them to festivals. Instead, they were both nearly entirely wastes of money. Had I shot digital, not only would I have more coverage, but no issues with the finished product, it would just be perfect. Now, I also scan film for a living as well. So I get to see what other people shoot. Man oh man, it's RARE I get anything that's actually perfect. Yes, it happens, we did a feature few months ago that was MOSTLY perfect outside of a camera issue on one roll. We're doing a feature right now that's pretty good, but we're seeing some odd jitter issues every once in a while, mid roll and such, very weird. So for sure not perfect, I guess if that's what you're after, then ok? But if I were spending 2 million dollars on a feature film, I would want 100% perfection. I would also be pretty pissed if I had an entire roll that was screwed up. I don't think I could shoot and re-shoot every single scene on another roll of film, just to make sure I got it in the can. The risk is just too great, especially for narrative where you may not get another opportunity. I can always go back and shoot more documentary stuff, nobody knows what I got. But on a narrative, even if you schedule reshoots in advance, you may be boned. I have worked on many films that could only afford two days of re-shoots, but we needed 4 or 5 to fix all the technical problems, along with the story ones. Better to focus on story and at least if I shoot digitally, I know at the end of the shoot day, that I got it and won't need to worry about it. So yea, I love the look of film and I'm going to keep shooting it when I'm hired and on personal projects where I can cope/deal with issues. I have really enjoyed the last decade shooting film, but it's been a hit or miss situation for me, which is unacceptable this day and age. Also, I have spent years working on a YouTube channel about shooting on film, with basically no success because nobody seems to care anymore. There was a day not long ago, where people actually were curious, but now there are so many higher end YouTubers using film as a way to drive subscribers, it's hard to get in edge wise. I could make 2 videos a week about nothing subjects like they do and probably not grow without resorting to digital cinema. So I did ONE digital cinema video, my channel explodes overnight, over one video and people want me to do more on the subject. IDK man, having spent so much time shooting film and promoting film and getting absolutely nowhere outside of my business which is a guarantee anyway due to people NEEDING their film cameras fixed, I just don't see it as that much of a benefit anymore. Decade ago? Sure! Absolutely it was a door opener. Today tho, it feels old hat. Everyone shoots film today, I'm flooded with cameras in for service, people going out to shoot their first roll ever sorta deal. I love meeting them and helping them get their cameras running, it's a lot of fun. In the end, the only person who cares if it's shot on film or not, is the filmmaker. I don't think people won't watch your film because it's shot digitally, nor do I think they'll care about what it "could" have looked like if it was shot on film. I know getting that feather in your cap about shooting a feature on film is cool, so go for it! Just don't expect magic to fly out of the scanner. LOL 😛