Tyler Purcell

I was sitting in a screening of Batman V Superman in 70mm and it was sold out. I was of course, looking behind me pre-show to see what the projectionist was doing and yapping to my roomie about it. The people next to me asked what I was yapping about.. I was like, ohh yea... this is a 4k scan out to 70mm film, very unusual presentation. They didn't even know what any of that meant, all they knew was the 70mm logo meant something special. Today, theaters are labeling film prints as being something special and a lot of those shows are instantly sold out. People don't know why, they just know it's not the same as whatever they're use to. This is part of the ebb and flow of technology. Only the pinnacle of the most recent XYZ or the old school ABC are interesting. Everything that's kinda in the middle, is kinda meh. People just want something different, no matter what it is. If all theaters were 35mm, they'd want digital. If all theaters were digital, they'd want 35mm. The problem is choice and a unique viewing experience. If you just give them the same thing every other theater has, it's not as cool.

What kills me about this whole discussion is that IMAX is lying to the public. Yes, IMAX Laser is undoubtedly brighter and more vibrant then 15/70 ever was. Then again, if they used a 70mm x 48.5mm imaging device and tried to deliver 12k like 15/70 does, they'd probably loose some of that brightness. So what they're giving the audience AND filmmakers, is a way to present their movies in a lower resolution format, so they won't see all the "issues" that arise with higher resolution formats like 15/70. It's really tricky to take a 2k or 4k source and blow it up to 15/70, it literally looks like crap, but magically on IMAX Laser it looks acceptable. I wonder why? Well, because IMAX is again, lying to the audiences. I actually know a few IMAX projectionists, guys who use to work for theaters that had laser projection installed. They gave away some of IMAX "secrets" when they lost their jobs. The big "secret" is that the only reason IMAX uses 2 projectors is to cover up for the pixel crispness. There was such a problem with the imager they use having black/dead space between each pixel, the 2nd projector is only there to overlay a "blurred" image of whatever the 1st projector is presenting. This is why you don't go into IMAX 3D theaters and get handed ACTIVE glasses, like the 15/70 3D movies. No, today with IMAX Laser, in fact ALL digital 3D formats are Polarized or Anaglyph which use ONE projector for 3D playback. Two projectors wouldn't make any difference at all, it's all just a gimmick. So the reason movies shot on 2k and 4k, projected on such a large screen look OK... is because they're "blurry". Heck, just watch the INTRO graphic to any IMAX laser projection presentation. It's the IMAX countdown on a white background with blue lettering. You can see the black lines of the imager, it's all over the place. Re-watch that same graphic on 15/70, it's just a solid image, no lines, no aliasing either, it's just solid as a rock. I know this because I've seen a few IMAX 15/70 movies in the last year and of course a bunch of IMAX Laser movies in different theaters. Then IMAX says, with two projectors they're getting MORE THEN 4k worth of resolution... what, what, what? If your source is 4k and your imager is 4k, you can't magically get MORE THEN 4k!?!?! A reminder; you can't magically make more resolution where it didn't exist in the first place. It's a lie and none of the big head honcho's of IMAX (all business men today ... the filmmakers all retired) will admit 15/70 is MORE THEN DOUBLE THE RESOLUTION OF THEIR FANCY NEW DIGITAL CRAP. The whole thing is a lie to make more money, get rid of the projectionists and the studio's get to make more profits. IMAX was suckered into that business model after failing miserably to deliver decent 15/70 content. All they had to do was develop a VistaVision style 35mm camera to save money on the vastly expensive 15/70 format for shooting. More people would have used it and more movies would have been shot that way. Instead, they stuck to the original 15/70 format which is too difficult to use for narrative most applications and when they floundered, they developed a 2k digital 3D camera and when that failed, they developed a digital 4k 3D camera and when that failed... wait a sec, that's today. The original crew were purists looking for the best technology solutions around and they had them, but there was a high cost. Today, IMAX is just a bunch of suits looking to put more money into their own damn pockets. None of the original crew are around and the geniuses who developed the early technology have retired or died off. They could care less about quality because if they DID, they would have developed an 8k system and been the first to come to market with one. But they didn't and they won't because they make plenty of money showing 4k images on a big screen, just like :cough: we've been doing for 100 years. If IMAX Laser was double 8K projectors with 100% 8k sources, on those smaller 16x9 screens... I'd have less to complain about. But they aren't... and they won't be anytime soon.

Here is what frustrates me... I go to the IMAX website and it's flooded with top hollywood movies. No mention what so ever of the "science/educational" films, some of which are still being shot on 15/70. I hit up my local "Science" IMAX theater's website and sure enough there is a movie called "National Parks Adventure 3D"... I watch the trailer, at the very end it says "Filmed with 15/70 IMAX 3D cameras"... Thus distinguishing itself from all the other 2k digital crap they've been doing recently. I might go see that tomorrow, just to get my 70mm fix for this month, as we still have a 15/70 theater not far from me. :)

100% agreed Richard. I grew up watching IMAX on a dome screen at my local Science Museum in Boston. It was one of the classic IMAX theaters, made in the mid 80's and of course, still runs 15/70 today. In fact, MOST of the science museums still run film because they own the equipment outright and until IMAX stops making prints, they will continue projecting them. I don't know of any non-science theaters that run 15/70. Some IMAX screens are just normal theaters with bigger screens and standard 2k digital projectors. It's a real atrocity and it's perpetuated thanks to the public not caring. Reminds me A LOT of what happened to THX. Originally a certification denoting timbre matching speakers and specific EQ electronics , now just a sticker any manufacturer can put on a device.

Yep, the way IMAX works today is they have 24/7 feedback to the headquarters, where they have people physically monitoring each show. It's the old "businessman" attitude. Lets pay 3 million dollars up front (for the digital projectors) so we can replace the labor. I've done the math and running an IMAX film projector costs around $30k - $50k month for parts and prints. Then you add projectionists who are in a union and charge around $1600 for a 12hr shift. You're looking at around a million dollars a year. With the laser projection, you don't need a projectionist and the laser sources don't go bad. So your up keep is basically reduced to nothing. Mind you, we went from 12k worth if resolution on 15/70 IMAX to 4k resolution on digital IMAX. But it's not about quality anymore, it's about how much money theaters can save, even though they charge more now then they've ever charged. The IMAX theaters near me are $20 or $22 depending on 2D or 3D. I personally can't wait for the lawsuit when IMAX tells all those people who invested in these fancy IMAX laser projectors, they're NOT upgradable to 8k. It may be the end of IMAX if they aren't careful.

I like history and the one piece of history I "like" the most is WWII. So I guess my phrase should have read 'I'm a fan of the time period and genera' maybe that would have read better.

FCP and DNX don't get along. You'd have to export to Pro Res for FCP to be happy.

I can't imagine 3:1 being possible, even on a film like 'Rope'. That means you're doing 3 takes of each single shot scene? No way... I just don't believe it. Actors make mistakes, the camera moves were very complex involving set pieces to be moved as well, I just can't imagine the ratio being anywhere near that low. It's fun to watch some of those classic Ford movies because you can see exactly what he's talking about. It's clever blocking and being very selective about inserts. His films do feel "cut in camera" which is a good thing and a bad thing. I do think in a perfect world, with a perfect script, excellent cast and everything rehearsed to the point of exhaustion, you can make a low-ratio movie. However, since movies have changed over the years, what comes of actors ad-libbing and being more relaxed in a scene, is well worth capturing. This is why the ratio has increased over the years. Catching great moments takes a lot more film because they don't happen magically on the first, second or even third take.

Like 'Interstellar', I assume Nolan will push IMAX to ship 15/70 projectors to theaters which are normally all digital. I'm just not sure if IMAX theaters have projectionist anymore.

Well, there are lots of problems with VistaVision, including the lack of a modern "silent" camera and extremely short film loads. The days of using an elephant ear camera in a blimp are kinda behind us. I've just been hearing rumors.. so we'll see! :)

Christopher Nolan is back, this time armed with an all-new 70mm lab in the UK. Nolan has decided to shoot his new movie "Dunkirk" entirely in 70mm. This decision comes at a cost obviously, in his previous films the decision to shoot 4 perf 35mm anamorphic was clearly one of cost savings, timing of the limited equipment availability and of course, speed of lab work. It's a lot harder to work on large format when there isn't a lab next door. Dunkirk is the story of the mass evacuation of troops, stuck in the little down of Dunkirk during the beginning of WWII, 1940 to be exact. History would make this incident, the largest sea rescue in history. Over 338 thousand soldiers from several countries, were pinned down in Dunkirk, cutoff from supply lines and worse of all, constantly being pushed closer and closer until they were literally trapped in the town of Dunkirk. That many people in such a small area, the Nazi's were eager to take them. Heck, had they been taken, perhaps the outcome of the war would have been quite different. The rescue started with British merchant ships, but soon there just wasn't enough ships or time. As the luftwaffe dropped bombs and attacked allied aircraft, the men boarded beached ships, many of which sunk right there on the beach. Local people and those from the UK came out with any type of boat imaginable in order to make the rescue more successful. Once the British troops were safe, there was another wave of ships sent back to pickup everyone else. Unfortunately between 30 and 40 thousand troops, the people on the front lines, were taken prisoner. The whole event took place from the middle of May 1941 to the first days of June. The actual story within the war framework, is yet to be known, but it's clear Nolan wanted to put the big air, land and sea battle on the big screen, using the largest film format possible. Nolan's Dunkirk will feature over 100 minutes of IMAX material, according to sources close to the production. So far almost all of the still and video images coming from set are of the IMAX camera, with only a few brief moments with the 5/70 Panavision cameras. So far the production has been shooting on location in France, close to where the actual rescue happened. They will then move to Holland for exteriors, UK for exteriors/interiors and finish in Los Angeles sometime a the end of the year for most likely studio work. The cast of Dunkirk includes; Tom Hardy, Mark Rylance, Kenneth Branagh, James D'Arcy and Cillian Murphy, one of Nolan's favorites. Dunkirk also re-unites the main crew that brought 'Interstellar' to life... Hoyte Van Hoytema heading up cinematography. Hans Zimmer writing the score. Lee Smith editing. Nathan Crowley production designer and of course, Emma Thomas Nolan's Producer. Since Nolan is such a purist and despises the over-use of computer effects, he is working very hard on Dunkirk to do everything in camera. This includes hiring hundreds of extras, blowing up air planes and sinking ships. So far the production has been littered with huge stunt sequences, most of them using models and/or sections of destroyed objects. The production does look a bit relaxed, without a video village and the normal rigs that go along with standard modern filmmaking. There are many stills of Nolan running the camera himself and Hoyte standing by on the side. It's reminiscent of a smaller budget production, only the content itself is a rather large scale. What we currently know about distribution of this movie is pretty vague at best. The teaser trailer, gives us some insight to Nolan's beliefs, stating the movie will be projected on 70mm, 35mm and IMAX film. These are of course, the same formats Nolan released 'Interstellar' in and looks to be doing the same thing again. This time around however, Nolan does have something up his sleeve, the fleet of almost 100 70mm projectors installed for 'Hateful Eight'. Could Warner strike a deal with the Weinstein's and perhaps loan those projectors? Would they even attempt that? Only time will tell. Nolan does have enough clout to release the movie on film only, but I doubt that will happen as Warner has too much invested for something to go wrong. So that's what we know so far, it's pretty interesting stuff for me, being a HUGE WWII fan and of course, loving the whole film aspect and Nolan's prior works. So in the next year, there will be more updates as time goes on, mostly due to my excitement. On a side note, rumors say PT Anderson is prepping his next movie, currently untitled... but starring Daniel Day-Lewis and to be shot entirely on large format. Due to Anderson's obsession with VistaVision, I have no doubt he'd go that route if the panavision 70mm cameras are too busy for him. So we MAY "fingers crossed" see, TWO NEW 70mm releases in 2017, only time will tell!

There are a few problems with older movies being projected in theaters today. Unfortunately, most theaters that show classic movies, don't put them in the 4k laser projection theater. Most of the time, they're screened in a small house, using an older 2k digital projector and sometimes even a BluRay source. So right away, you might as well just watch it at home. Then you've got the problem of restoration and how well it's done. Again, unfortunately most restoration is done at 4k today. This is a HUGE problem because from now on, those go-to masters will (like digital acquisition content) be stuck at a fixed resolution. I have seen some 35mm prints of movies that were digitally restored and honestly, you can tell they were digitally restored right away. They're ultra crisp and the grain structure seems over-kill, no where near as "clean" as a photochemical print. Yes, I did see an archival print of "Pickup on South Street" that was digitally restored and looked pretty good, but the film had deteriorated pretty badly. In that case, when you have no choice, what can you do? Personally, I'm of the ilk that anything shot on film that was finished on film, should be projected on film. Anything that was shot on film and finished digitally, should probably be projected digitally because that's the Directors vision. As David pointed out, there are a lot of poor prints running around of unrestored movies or even photochemical restorations done in the 80's and 90's that don't look so hot. I have seen several of them over the years, but honestly I'd live with a few dirt and edge issues to see a print struck from the negative. The print of "It's a Mad Mad World" I saw last year, was a bit faded, but it was pretty clean and absolutely worth watching. I do know it was restored because it had digital audio and the original didn't. However, my guess is it wasn't a digital restoration due to the fading. I have not yet seen the Warner Archive '2001' print yet. Every year I try to go and every year I'm busy that weekend. Same goes for the photochemical restoration of 'Vertigo' one of my all-time favorite films.. just another one that's booked on days I'm busy. The big problem with prints comes down to the cost. It's expensive to ship a print and project it, so the theater has to book seats or it's not worth it. LACMA and American Cinematheque, have a budget to do this, which is why we see so many really good prints at those theaters. However, other theaters don't have that kind of money, including Quentin's theater. Yet I must admit, I have never seen a torn up print at the New Bev, they generally look pretty good, thanks to fantastic projection. I just wish the Arclight in Hollywood would put more effort into their summer movie releases instead of simply running BluRay's or DCP's. This year there is only ONE 35mm film, 'Goonies' August 23rd... another "sunday afternoon" screening I can't attend. With Hollywood movies being so poor these days, one would think there would be a pretty big business in projecting restored movies, like the Jaws 4k re-release... but on film. I personally know dozens of film industry people who would pack the theater if they did a few 70mm and 35mm run's, even during the week night. It gets frustrating when the only way to see decent prints these days is at a theater that has horrible sound and a small screen (New Bev) or as a digital presentation that's no better then my home theater. :shrug:

With Final Cut 7, you simply export the sequence as XML and import it into DaVinci. Since all media is "linked" in FCP7, DaVinci will re-link media automatically and you will correct in DaVinci. If you're exporting media out of FCP7 and putting it into DaVinci, that's not going to work.

Welcome to the forum! The film you have is Tri-X black and white reversal which is 200 ISO/ASA. This is a non-color stock, so things like tungsten vs daylight mean pretty much nothing. As a side note, reversal film like what you have is designed for projecting, which is great for someone just starting out, saves you from having to do a video transfer to see your footage. Color film is balanced for either tungsten or daylight, which is why most cameras have a little slide switch on the side that filter properly. The super 8 cartridge itself has identifying notches built in, which trigger switches inside the camera itself to determine things like daylight vs tungsten automatically. This is what the manual is discussing in the second picture you posted. I'm pretty sure the camera automatically takes care of ISO/ASA and exposure for sure. All you need to do is throw the cartridge in and go shoot. That particular stock isn't going to be sensitive enough for shooting subjects around a camp fire unfortunately, it really does need bright sunlight to shoot with because it has such a shallow latitude. It will have no problem capturing the fire itself, but if you wish to see anyone or anything around the fire, the drop off will probably be too much. Here is some technical stuff on that particular stock that you may learn some things from: http://motion.kodak.com/KodakGCG/uploadedfiles/motion/Kodak/motion/Products/Camera_Films/BW_Reversal/Technical_Data/H-1-7266.pdf

Very cool! I'm so excited about this restoration because the previous one done in the late 90's, wasn't that great.

In my opinion, the problem isn't as much lighting as it is the "fix it in post" mentality we've had for the last 15 years or so. With the advent of high-resolution film to digital scans and RAW capture for digital cinema cameras, the amount of alterations one can make in post sky rocketed. Digital post has enabled filmmakers to do wild things like cut people out of one take and put them into a different take. To remove any mistakes in the shots, to create the ultimate in perfection. I do believe to get a studio film released today, it must meet a certain criteria of "WOW" or it just won't fly. Now, there are plenty of smaller films that go the opposite direction. It's just, we don't see them in the box office very much and when we do, it's a small breath of fresh air... last year there were quite a few of those "in-camera" movies made, most of them never saw wide theatrical release.

Yea David is spot on... I can't imagine shooting at anything less then 8:1 on a feature. The big reason as he mentions is coverage. Think about a typical dialog scene, there is a master wide, medium, close up's, maybe multiple actor inserts. Then you've gotta take into account flubbed takes, slates, losses from loading and such. When you're working on a feature, things aren't quite as loose time wise. You've gotta hustle and that means, there is a bit more waste then under a longer time frame, more controlled short. I like David's "one can per page" idea, that's pretty clever. I generally work with the the ol' rule of thumb which is 1 minute per page, so at an 8:1 ratio, that's almost a roll per page. In terms of budget, my "blanket" 10:1 budget for 16mm looks like this: Film Stock (10:1 ratio) 90 minute movie 32000ft @ 0.32/ft = $10,240.00 Film Processing 32000ft 0.12/ft = $3,840.00 Film Transfer (2.5k scan) 32000ft 0.4/ft $12,800.00 Film total = $26,880.00 You're looking at 80 rolls of film.

I talk to people breaking into the industry weekly. Whether they're brought in as lower-end roles on productions I'm involved with OR simply meet them through renting my equipment. I've literally met 100's of people in the last year, all of them excited to be where they are and striving to move up the ladder. When I have a moment, I always sit down with them and ask the same questions; what is your end goal and why aren't you there now. They're really basic, but it makes them think and sometimes just thinking about things stirs new ideas. What I've learned with those questions is pretty straight forward. Everyone wants to be a cinematographer or director and nobody really knows why they aren't doing it right now. Some say "I've gotta pay my dues", but they don't really know what that means. I've been living in Los Angeles for 15 years come this September. I moved here specifically to be in the film industry, but I came here with certifications for Apple service. So I basically whored myself out all over town, doing computer gigs and since this is a film industry town, I was able to make friends with some people who eventually gave me creative work. Honestly, for me it was a very quick road, I shot my first feature less then a year after landing. Unfortunately, I was screwed on the deal financially, didn't have enough money to make ends meet and I wound up being a bench technician for a paintball field, lucky to make $50 a day. I spent around a year going from gig to gig, learning the ropes, being broke to the point of borrowing money from my parents, it was really hard times. I almost moved back to Boston where I'm originally from, but I scored a full-time job and over the course of 8 years, worked a normal 9 - 6. It was a blessing to have a normal job because again, I constantly met people and was taking freelance creative work from those people on the side. I built quite a resume in the process, not IMDB or demo reel credits, but stuff I would need to progress in my backup job if necessary. At the height of the economic down turn, I lost two jobs back to back from bankruptcies/chapter 11 protection. This pushed me to work as a freelancer again and I've done so for the last 5 years, with the exception of an 8 month stint as an online editor with a somewhat normal paycheck. Today I work freelance, make about $20k a year in "taxable" income and do A LOT of little jobs on the side for cash, shooting this, editing that, sometimes tech work to help out older clients. Honestly, anything that pays the bills and doesn't waste any time, I'll usually go for it. I also got very lucky and have two "honey pot" clients, guys who send me work on a regular basis and so far 2016 has been the best year of freelance since I started 5 years ago. I don't hold my breath though, I'm constantly looking for new avenues of money and constantly writing/working on new projects, either for myself or friends. It's a never ending "hustle" living in Hollywood and you've gotta play the game. Looking back on the whole thing, I really do feel the key is starting from ground zero, with no crazy ambitions and simply being on bigger sets. Whatever you can find, movies, television, commercial, it doesn't matter. Start sweeping the floors/unloading trucks for $125/day, meeting young people like yourself who have like-minded goals and build a community who takes care of one another. That's how you build success, it comes from being part of a group who cares about one another. That sounds simple, but it's very difficult to get there and generally speaking, you need a lot of talent to prove yourself. This is part of the reason why I took the "jack of all trades" approach to working in the industry because frankly, if you do one thing really good and nothing else, you've just closed almost all the doors you've got for making money. Today, all of the 20 somethings I work with are all jack of all trades. They're cinematographers by day, editors and VFX guys at night. It's crazy how the industry has changed, partially due to the accessibility of tools, that until recently were cost prohibitive. Now anyone can learn anything on their spare time, which is just crazy. This new generation doesn't specialize, which is why you see so many 30 something filmmakers who are well verse in other disciplines, getting opportunities that most of us simply don't get because we don't speak their language, whatever it may be. I hope through reading this, you can understand a few of the things that are necessary to "crack the code" in hollywood, one of them is having a backup gig, the other is having a good inner circle of friends who can help you find work. This industry is 100% nepotism, people don't want to risk a craigslist person. They'd rather go all internal, call their friends and then if one of those knows you, that's when you're in business. It only takes doing a good job on ONE project, to secure more job's. It's all about finding the filmmakers who are always working and pushing yourself to be their 'A' guy. That takes a while, more then a few years in fact. It took me years to find the right person to work with and I thank him every day. It's an ever-lasting doorway to more work, I'm literally inundated with work, tossing jobs to other people he's worked with prior when I can't do them. Eventually he'll trust me enough for me to push work to my friends and that's how the whole thing works.

Ohh don't hate her at all actually, I hate her "studio routine", the one she's paid to do. I thought she was great in 'St Vincent' along with Bill Murray. That's the only role I've seen her in, where she actually acted and she did an admirable job. She reminds me a lot of Adam Sandler... always doing the same ol' routine over and over again. Only difference is that I truly dislike Sandler.

Next year... Nolan's new film 'Dunkirk', that will be the next "real" movie I've seen in the future. Shot entirely on 70mm, it's going to be distributed on 70mm as well. Plus, it's going to be all done in camera. The BTS stuff so far is amazing, literally crashing mock up air planes into the ocean, putting huge sections of sunken ships right into the ocean for people to cling onto. They have thousands of extras for the big action scenes and are using tricks like smoke/fog and false perspective. In terms of the story, it's probably just a plain jane war epic, just done right, without all the whiz bang of modern movies. Here is hoping he doesn't mess it up! The problem with modern movies is that they pander to the lowest common denominator in every level. Fart jokes have become the norm because you can't get any lower then that. When you watch the new Ghostbusters move and then you watch the original Ghostbusters movie, what do you see? The new movie (from what I watched) seems entirely ad-lib, with the actors giving advice to the director on what the scene should be. Notice how the actresses are NEVER scared of the ghosts? It's like everything is fake and they know it. Now, watch the original Ghostbusters, it seems very well scripted, it's suspenseful, and somewhat intelligent when it comes to the characters motivation. They aren't just a few chicks running wild, in the original movie, those guys were broke, they got a loan and they started a business with it. The whole thing made sense and when they saw ghosts earlier in the movie, they were actually shocked by them. Those guys were acting based on a script and in the new Ghostbusters, it appears the girls were writing the script as they went along. Using fart jokes, screaming sessions and horribly stupid scenarios to build tension. Nobody can just make a scene anymore without some ticking clock in the background. Either someone rushes in mid scene and stirs the pot or there is a train that's going to run them over. What happened to scenes being good enough to stand on their own without the ticking clock? When I started watching the new Ghostbusters, when I closed my eyes, it could have been any Melissa McCarthy movie... which is the biggest problem of all.

In regards to lines per picture height, it's a document based on projection resolution more then anything else. So they're focused on how many lines the naked eye can see on screen. In my eyes, that's the most important thing because if you can't differentiate between the lines, then the resolution just isn't there. I also assume they did all the testing with a moving system. Meaning, things like registration, shutter and lens would play into the results more then if they simply scanned a still frame with a 12k scanner or something. I think it would be easy to re-create part of the test.

Yea, I know it's a bit confusing. I just looked at the MTF chart, where the camera negative held all the way down to 2400 in both vertical and horizontal. Then I realized that data isn't the right stuff to look at. I was able to deduce from the numbers they used, that 109 lines per mm seemed a close approximation.

I found it on my phone... lets see if this works: http://www.motionfx.gr/files/35mm_resolution_english.pdf

If you google Kodak film resolution test it will pop up. If you can't find it, i'd be more then happy to post it when I get near a computer again.

Yea the Kodak documentation was measuring mtf vertical vs horizontal and I mistyped... I fixed the data in my initial post. I agree it does seem low but it was using older film stocks.