Tyler Purcell

Wait Abel isn't doing repairs? When did that happen? I was just there getting parts talking to the Aaton service guy.

Because humans are analog beings. Heck, everything we do digitally is a "translation" of something to a digital form and back again for us to use. It's only made efficient thanks to computer technology, otherwise we'd still be using analog today for everything. So it's more of a fascination with "technologies" which are made for humans to absorb; books, paintings, photochemical processes, records/tapes, etc.

Looking for Fuji S16mm stock, either old school Super F/Reala or Eterna. 8622 64D 8646 250D 8674 500T I purchased 20 rolls of F series, thinking I could augment it with another 20 rolls if I looked hard enough. There was a lot of it on ebay at one point, but it hadn't been stored properly and due to the age, I was concerned it wouldn't be good. Since then, I've struggled to find anything but 35mm. So I've been buying all the Fuji 35mm stock I could afford and have quite a bit. So the option for me is to shoot half the movie 35m and the other half 16. However, I have all the equipment to shoot 16 and not enough to shoot 35, which is a conundrum. So this is why I'd rather just shoot everything on 16 and not worry. The project I'm thinking about is more of a film noir piece, so grainy/gritty is OK, which is why the older Fuji stock should work fine. I kinda dig how the stock delivers a pinkish warmth, almost like an old move which has faded. Let me know if anyone has anything. I've called around to different stock houses and the only stuff I've found is 35mm.

Yea, I kinda think the reason lighting was such a problem comes down to many factors. One of which is the fact that film stocks were still very slow and most movies had heavy key lights as a consequence. Our stocks and digital cameras are way faster then they've ever been. Also, today, we're less afraid to let the actors face fall into darkness then in the past. People today aren't scared of shadows, they're OK with letting things disappear and a lot of filmmakers let everything but key action disappear. This is part of the reason guys like Stanley Kubrick were so revolutionary. The lighting of his films is very realistic and not the norm of the period he shot in. He made those slower film stocks work through clever lighting and lensing. However, he had complete control over his movies, unlike other filmmakers. So it's a tough call, either follow the "standard practices" of everything being lit perfectly or maybe you won't get another job on the next film. Today audiences are OK with dark scenes. I personally don't think today's movies are any higher then those in the past. I just feel today's filmmakers are more free to do what they want, which makes for higher artistry.

Nice, gotta love Sharon Jones! :)

Nice, I love the project. I think shooting on 35mm is very cool and in a lot of ways, capturing the movie with an analog format is kinda critical isn't it. I think the trailer does a much better job at "selling" the project. Where I enjoyed your promo piece, the trailer feels like it should be your main video on kickstarter. A few questions... 3 perf 35mm? How did you conduct the interviews on film with such short film loads? How much film have you shot so far?

I haven't been blessed with the opportunity to be part of a big enough show in the assistant editing room where things are originally compiled. I'm an editor, so I come in after the AE's done their business and I'm rarely handed anything but a copy of the script and the script notes, which I reference if I'm stumped. I watch the cut and determine what needs to be done based on the directors notes and what I see. As a colorist, I've never seen script or camera notes on any show. I'm also rarely involved with the final pass on the bigger shows. With those particular shows, I'm more if the intermediary guy who edits the project and then does an initial color for the top colorist to finish. That's why I had to learn DaVinci, it was a prerequisite for my job/business rather then something I wanted to do. Yes, I do a lot of final color, but those are on smaller shows that wouldn't have any notes, like trailers, commercials, promo's, corporate, shorts and low-budget features. I'm in the middle of cutting two features and neither one had any notes from the camera department. We use to read the AC articles about the movies and compare our notes. It's a great exercise to understand what you think they're doing vs what they ARE doing. Sometimes we'd just watch the BluRay, take notes and compare them to the AC article right then and there. Between all of us, we'd usually be pretty darn close.

huh? These guys knew nothing about the shoot walking into the theater. Even in the world of post production, it's rare for an editor to even request or have access to camera reports and most script notes only give focal length, not f stop and type of lens/filters.

VHS dailies? YUCK! Worst dailies I ever got was 3/4" SP, though most of the time it was Betacam SP and eventually DV. I can't imagine trying to judge things off a VHS tape. :(

Imagine that! :)

I agree Miguel, with the high price of crew and A list cast today, films are being shot at an escalated pace. It's more then typical to shoot 5 pages a day, even on medium sized movies. I personally feel, much over 2 pages a day is the cut off between getting it perfect (lighting, camera moves, performances, art design, etc) vs skimping in some way. When you get into the 3 - 5 pages per day area, you're absolutely going to be skimping on something. Just look at 'Bridge of Spies', there are MANY scenes in that movie which have lights just thrown in corners, some of which you could swear were in shot, but some CG guy put a book case in front of to block. Most of that is due to the limited time the crew had in certain locations, but if you look more closely at the BTS, you can see just how fast they were shooting it. Sometimes shooting 2 pages a day, other times shooting what appears to be way more. If you CAN slow the pace of production down, lets say spreading it over 45 days instead of 25 days, you'll be able to spend more time on the little nuances. Also, I always tell people the key is pre-production. If you can visit all the locations in advance, get an understanding for what you'd do at each of them, build a lighting rig on paper and have a large enough crew to implement it, then you SHOULD be in good shape. You've just gotta keep the company moves do a minimal and find locations with lots of shooting options. Filmmakers today apparently forget those critical elements, so they're doing multiple company moves a day, which substantially inhibits the crews ability to do things right. Sure, it's an awesome feeling to get a movie done in 22 days or less... (my last two were 18 days and 12 days YIKES) but if the net result is a poor product, what's the point? I'd rather have some breathing room, even if it means an unpaid day off for the cast and most of the crew, so the lighting guys can go in and pre-light so things are done right. I've done that before on a few shows and it works well, but it means you've gotta nail your location and be able to shoot a lot in the same place... which of course, comes down to the script. All in all, I do think the topic about "fast" shooting is a problem. I personally can't stand the way MOST movies are shot today, it's just uninspiring.

I spend most days editing material shot with them and coloring the end result. It's not really a feat at all... most of my friends can tell you what stop they used per shot and some of them, exactly what glass as well. I'm not THAT good. LOL

Yes, a "negative" would have negative polarity imagery. David is right about the orange look of an interpositive, it's just not quite as bright and of course would have a positive image.

Man, I had my eyes on that thing for the last year. Wayne wouldn't budge on the price, he was like $3500, not a dollar less. I kinda was frustrated because I wanted a smaller camera to work with then my Moviecam, but didn't have the money. :sigh: I guess I know who to call up if I need one! :) I didn't know it didn't have batteries, that's a real shame. They're kind of a bitch to find because I don't think you can use the XTR batteries. So there were just less of the flatter high capacity batteries around. The magazines do seem odd to load, but I guess that's par for the course. There is a great guy here in LA who is renting Arri ST/LT's for $100/day 3 perf and 4 perf. After talking with him for a while, I figured it was just cheaper to rent when I needed since I can't afford the glass anyway. :sad panda: Well, I'm glad it went to someone who will use it!

I've been doing it since I was a kid. I guess it's just having an eye for little nuances that trigger a memory.

Can't wait to mess around with it! :)

Orange would be negative. Depending on the vintage, original camera negative will have keycode numbers on the edge, as of I believe the 80's. If the film is older the 80's, you'll have to look for other identifying information. Yes original camera negative is the best to make a scan from. You will have to color correct and find sound of course.

Hey Frank, welcome to the forum! Per the rules here, we use first and last names as our identifiers. You will probably be hounded about that until you remedy it, so might as well give you the heads up. For photochemical finishing, everything is done with a negative to positive to negative to positive. So original camera negative would have an "interpositive" struck from it. That would be the 2nd generation and would have color/soundtrack applied. Generally an internegative is struck from the interpositive and that "IN" is used to make theatrical prints. Several "IN's" will be struck from the interpositive because one IN can only run off a few hundred prints. Theater prints can obviously be made from any IN, either early in the run or late in the run. Obviously the first prints struck from the first IN would be the best prints. You can also strike answer prints directly from the camera negative. This technique is done to check things like color and sound before striking a final IP. Smaller films use this technique to strike a hand-full of high-quality prints, right from the negative for festivals or limited runs. Unfortunately, there are really only two ways to "finish" your movie. One way is the process mentioned above, but it's only good for academy 4 perf camera original. The moment you wish to "save" film and shoot 2 perf or 3 perf, you need to do an optical reduction, which is expensive and adds one more layer to the whole process. With 2 and 3 perf, it's better to just scan the negative at 5k and laser it back to film. The funny thing is, that whole process is more costly then just shooting the movie on 4 perf to begin with! If your net result will be a photochemical finish with 35mm prints, you can't get better then shooting it 4 perf. Hope any of that was helpful.

Or maybe it's just the filmmakers using the old school cinematic method of making movies. Most digital cameras look ok under controlled lighting conditions. It's when you break away from those situations where different cameras start to feel more or less filmic. Put a 35mm camera on your shoulder and go out and shoot anything, it will look "filmic" no matter what. Do the same thing with a digital camera, things like motion blur and highlight clipping, really start to define digital cameras, especially at night. There have been a multitude of tests done with the Alexa directly against Super 35mm and the only time you can tell the difference between the two is with uncontrolled lighting, especially in dark situations. Film always holds up, where even the mighty Alexa has a very digital looking motion blur and the way it reacts to highlights is totally different. I'm rarely stumped when watching something, even at home on my 1080p DLP cinema projector. I can usually tell what digital camera it was shot with. I enjoy verifying my opinion on IMDB and it's rare that I'm off. Discerning film v digital isn't even in the cards, the difference is noticeable right away, then it's down to what stock and lenses they used. To me, that means even the best, most talent artists, still haven't been able to achieve the perfect, most "filmic" look with digital cameras. The argument is... why bother? We're in a new age, the age of digital and film is very much still alive. So if you want a filmic look, just shoot film! It's cheaper now then it's been for quite sometime, thanks to so many people shooting and so much re-can stock being available. New labs are popping up all over the place and pricing for lab work is slowly becoming competitive to the level where shooting on film isn't anywhere near as expensive. So when people ask me; "how do I get a filmic look", I point to a picture of a 16mm camera and say; "that's how".

I'm not sure about the format change, but I assume there will be. It's just, this time around it won't be as noticeable. So far they've shot WAY more 15/70 then 5/70. I have a feeling he will be using 15/70 for everything outside of intimate dialog scenes where audio is critical.

I've been shooting 10 year old Fuji stock that's coming out great. I mostly shoot old stock because I can't afford to shoot new stuff. I'll do a clip test of one roll since it was all together and see what it comes out like. I've found Kodak to have much better stability over the long term then Fuji. So if the Fuji stuff looks/works fine, I assume the Kodak will as well. Thanks for the info... it was just shocking to see the ol' 500T logo with no "vision" near the name and a 2012 production date.

Phil, IMAX 3D using it's double projector, active glasses system, is an entirely different concept to digital projection with passive glasses. Active 3D always has jitter/wiggle, doesn't matter what projection system you use, digital or film. The reason is simple... the brain has to deal with those shutters flickering right in front of your eye. Unlike the film projector shutter, which on IMAX is very fast, the glasses shutter physically blocks every other frame. So your brain has a hard time keeping pace with it all and the net result is a bit of stutter/jitter. The passive system requires more light, but since the brain isn't constantly having to process the shutters within the glasses, it's a "smoother" presentation. In fact, I'd beg to say for 3D applications, IMAX Laser is by far the best. IMAX 3D projectors have registration pins as well, so the film can't shake/wobble at all, it's physically impossible. I've seen 100's of 2D IMAX films and have never once seen one iota of jitter. In fact, the credits on 'Interstellar' were so rock solid, I had to turn around to see if they switched to a digital projector or not. Anyway, we aren't talking about 3D in this thread. That is a whole other can of worms that's really based on each individual. I personally hate 3D, it's turned movie theaters into theme park rides.

So I just got a hold of a bunch of 5230, thinking it was some pre-vision stock. Yet I some to learn it's actually between vision 2 and vision 3. So why did Kodak move away from the "vision" brand and make a straight 500T stock like this? Was it just old chemistry lying around they wanted to use or were there other reasons? I saw a few videos on the subject, but every says "it's an INDY film stock"... but so is Vision 3... umm so confused.

3 strip cinerama wasn't a very good format. The big problem's were lack of lens selection (everything had to be wide angle), a noisy/large camera that required a huge blimp, 3 rolls of film being inconsistent to one another and of course, the cost of shooting, processing, timing and releasing 3 prints for each movie. Remember, back then there were no platter systems, so film was projected using large reels on a rack next to the projector. Some of these big movies required intermissions to re-load and re-time all 3 of the projectors to continue the screening. What amazes me is how long the format stuck around and how many cinema's converted to use it. To me, it goes to show how much of a "gimmick" it was at the time. Trying desperately to drag people away from their black and white TV's and into the awe inspiring world of cinema. The replacement for Cinerama, or the "competitor" that became the replacement (Todd-AO, Super Panavision 70, MGM camera 65), was very good. 5 perf 70mm is no slouch and sure, it was less resolution then 3 x 6 perf 35mm, but the aspect ratio of Cinerama did stay the same at first. It was obviously cheaper then 3 strip AND more consistent when projecting. Plus, you could use longer lenses and make the movie LOOK like a regular movie. Which brings me back to the whole projection thing... now you could run A/B projectors and watch an entire movie without breaks. This saved the theaters a lot of time and "intermissions" started to become a thing of the past. It does kill me that IMAX swears up and down that digital laser projection does "fill the screen", which is absolutely a lie. I seriously hope they aren't ripping out 1.44:1 screens and putting in 1.90:1 screens at "classic" 15/70 IMAX venue's. That would not only be a big mistake, but would instantly kill the brand. I'm OK with a hand-full of 15/70 theaters, as long as every city has one and IMAX keeps printing movies. I'm not OK with the current direction which is BEYOND substandard compared to 15/70.

What? What? What? Umm, bad effects work generally comes from time/money constraints in post production and/or the effects people not know how to achieve what the director wants. It's true when you try to pull a key, higher bit depth and color space files are very important. However, if you can't pull a key, good artists can work around the problems. There are dozens of high-budget movies which use Go Pro's or similar 8 bit 4:2:0 cameras and pull keys from them. You don't even know they were used it's so seamless. Did he? I would beg to differ. Yes, his dreamed pushed production to a level, most filmmakers wouldn't go to. Yet, the end result was very much "un" technical. Due to Kubrick's concern about quality of theaters, ALL of his 35mm distributed movies outside of 'Eyes Wide Shut' were shot full frame and had mono audio tracks. In fact, his 35mm distributed movies were not available in "stereo" until the remastered 1999 DVD set. Kubrick also used standard run if the mill cameras; Mitchell's of various types and , Arri II, Arri BL and eventually the 535. Had Kubrick really been that technically savvy, he would have shot everything in 70mm to insure picture and audio were up to the best standards. He did so in 2001 and probably could have convinced Warner to do the same on his other movies. The problem is, Kubrick liked small hand held cameras and his experience working with the huge Panavision 70mm cameras, I believe turned him off. He did it once, but never used large format again, which is a real shame. So wait a second, you complained above about an 8 bit 4:2:0 image, yet you recommend cameras that shoot 8 bit 4:2:0? EEK!