Tyler Purcell

I may be able to help you out... but the cost of shipping to Italy and re-celling, doesn't seem worth it in the long run. You should be able to find batteries in Europe, especially in the UK. I've seen them on ebay before, just gotta keep an eye on them.

Not saying it would... some people may think so, but I don't. If graded identically, film and the Alexa will look pretty close, that's all people are saying. I haven't put the image on my DLP projector yet, but suffice to say, I'm so use to watching content on my laptop, it's almost a better "reference" for me. I'll have to check it on yee ol' projector. I don't know of a Netflix show shot on Alexa. I believe the shows are pretty much all RED, partially due to the 4k source issue. From my understanding, Alexa is still 3.2k, which means it would be "subpar" for Netflix and since it's nearly impossible to put a single resolution figure on film since there are so many deciding factors, Netflix is limited to RED cinema for the time being. It may also harder to produce a show like that on film, for not much if any "perceived" added benefit to the production. However, the producers spent so much time getting things right, it amazes me they failed on some of the more critical things. Obviously it's just my opinion, taken with a grain of salt. But the audience for such a show, are people like myself, who still think the 80's were great and we liked that style of filmmaking. Thus, when someone tries, even gets it 80% there and then fails with something as trivial as the camera/lenses and CG effects, none of which really effect budget, it gets disconcerting. I do personally think shooting on 35mm, with 500T, getting that beautiful grain and softening the image quite a bit, would have made it look better all the way around, including helping my idea of practical "creatures". Ohh and my comment about the visual effects being practical... none of what they did was difficult, people have been doing the same type of effects practically for decades. Plus, the campiness of the story, really requires campy effects. The addition of the CG elements, took me right out of the story and brought a seriousness to it that really wasn't necessary.

My point is, Super 35mm has plenty of resolution for a 4k deliverable. In the case of this particular show, they most likely did a completely standard 4096 × 2160 finish with matte lines at the top and bottom, shrinking the image to less than a typical 4096 × 2160 deliverable.

Actually, most film schools don't use film anymore. Those who made the switch, sold their cameras years ago. Those who haven't, are going to keep the cameras most likely. I haven't found anyone willing to give away cameras. Most cameras have value and that keeps people wanting to keep them OR sell for money on ebay. There are plenty of inexpensive 16mm cameras, but shooting on film is expensive. So buying a low-cost camera seems counter intuitive when the cost to create an image is so high. For instance, you can buy a working non-sync sound camera for $350. Yes it will be wind up, but it will probably come with a lens. $350 is the cost to shoot and transfer around 15 minutes of film on 16mm. Now obviously if you shoot B&W reversal and project only, you can save quite a bit of money. Still, the point here is that if you're going to spend $350 for every 15 minutes, why not just spend the money up front and get something better, OR just rent when you need one. Most rental houses will give you a killer deal on a long-term rental if you want it.

Yea, I know Netflix requires a 4k digital source. However, at 2:1 aspect ratio, that deliverable is nowhere near 4k. So they clearly CAN bend the rules. Nowhere in the deliverable requirements, does it mention the source must be digital. Devils in the details with the RED cameras, they're overly crisp, so you need to do quite a bit of work making them soft shooting and in post production. These "filter" layers are clear as day and obviously, the use of modern lenses plays havoc as well. Plus, the RED steers towards magenta and green, both of which aren't pleasing to the eye. Yes, they did a great job cleaning it up, but notice how the blacks aren't black, they're kinda blue. The night stuff has no soul to it, it's just ultra flat and digital looking. There is also no depth to the images. Yes, the first episode has no effects anyway, but their decision to make critical pieces of the story CG based, was kinda silly. They could have done ALL of the effects practical without much effort.

Just finished watching the series, over the course of 2 days, whilst in I'm in the middle of cutting two features. Once I watched the first episode, I was totally hooked and made the time to watch all 8 in 48hrs. The credit music and that old school opening credit sequence, was really drove me to keep watching. Anyone who wanted that kind of old school look, done "properly", wasn't going to let me down story wise and they did a good job. One thing about the show that I loved is that they did exactly what I wanted them to do. Today's content is so predictable, they always put characters in bad situations and kill them off right when they start to figure things out. This show had multiple chances to do things like that and they didn't go that way. To me, that was a master stroke because you could now connect with the characters in a way in most modern shows you can't. I also loved the over-arching plot, it was really simple and it worked! Sure, they could have gone more sci-fi, but it wasn't about that, it was about this small town and the people who live in it. The production design, sets and actors were perfect for the show. They absolutely nailed the 80's and I give them HUGE credit where so many filmmakers screwed up. The cinematography in of itself, wasn't bad at all. I never once said, that was poorly lit. In fact, I commended the 80's vibe they were getting and actually would like to watch again, just to study some of the tricks in more detail. Shooting on 2 perf 35mm would have absolutely saved their ass, but now a days, people never even contemplate that, especially for a television show. I agree on most shows, it doesn't matter, but on a show like this, it would have been super cool and could have hidden a lot of the issues. Now for the two big mistakes... one, shooting on RED. What a god awful decision that was. First few shots I knew it was RED and honestly I almost shut it off. In my eyes, it's such a poor decision for a show like this, where you want a more classic 80's look, I thought the show runners would probably mess it up after that RED decision. Obviously the content and characters drove me to continue watching and since I watched the entire series on my 17" macbook pro, the crisp digital look wasn't too concerning. It was just not a great decision in my mind, but they did make it work because they pushed the show to be more character driven then visual. Second big mistake, CG effects... Not smart. Really poor move. I can't honestly recommend any of my Sci-Fi friends watch this series because they will blame me the moment they see those not good CG effects. They didn't even try to make the effects look good, they were just poor all the way through. Yet another case of not quite knowing their audience (like the RED choice). Luckily, the visual effect shots are far in between, so you only have to cringe a once or twice per episode. So yea, I can't wait for another season, I just hope the series does well enough that they wind up doing another season. Hopefully they can do more practical effects next time around. I personally enjoyed the show for the content, but I know a lot of people where that's not enough. It was 2 small steps away from being really something special, but kinda ruined thanks to the camera and CG effects.

That particular picture is of a mitchell camera, which looks like a 3 strip body, but I can't quite tell. Yea IMDB says "Arriflex" cameras, but they were probably used for some hand held application. Remember, at that point, sync sound/quite cameras were in huge boxes. So when you see those hand held shots, those are not the standard studio cameras shooting them. I believe in the 60's, there were only two 400ft 35mm hand held cameras available; the Eclair CM3 and Arri IIB/C.

I totally feel your pain. Worst part is, everyone has their own slang for different connectors and cables as well. It's almost a sub-dialect, which makes it awfully confusing. I was just looking through my ASC and Camera assistant manuals, but neither one covers cables like that. Worst part is, Fischer, Hirose and Lemo, come in several styles. Good news is, only a few of them are used on film sets. SO IDK man, it's a great question! Lets see if anyone else has any ideas.

I saw it last night. Twasn't bad actually, pretty simple and workable plot I thought. Obviously, there were a lot of crazy things that were added for the sheer "wow" factor. I can see a bunch of people sitting in a room, throwing around ideas, not even contemplating anything related to actual science. I mean it's back to my beef with this new generation Star Trek, they've kinda removed the "science fiction" and added generic "action". Someone posted a video with a trekkie discussing the TNG movies and the 'NEW' trek movies. It was funny when the reviewer said, the TNG crew wasn't designed for action, which is right. IN my eyes, that's one of the reason's TNG was so great. It was really Science Fiction first and the crew was "out of place" in an action scene. Where this new 'trek' is all about taking huge risks, getting into fist fights, riding gas powered motorcycles and basically turning off all science realism, in favor of silly action scenes which are designed to WOW. So if you like 'wow' and 'pop' movies, this one does do a good job. It was entertaining all the way through, but it lacks the meaning of the other two movies. This one felt a little bit more shallow, like it could have been a single episode of TNG, rather then some big space epic. That aspect wasn't a bad thing, it was just unexpected. I also enjoyed it more then I expected, which was a good thing I guess. The trailers made the movie out to be pretty bad and the 4 editor credits, kinda proved they had some issues in post. I would have like to see what went wrong, what they needed to re-shoot(add) or cut out. I thought Justin Lin did an acceptable job, but his action scene direction style is very shaky cam and very close up, so you can't really see what's going on. This kinda helps so you can't identify who is fighting, but when the fight is between two people in heavy makeup, in my opinion, there is no excuse not to use serious stunt doubles and make a real fight scene out of it. Outside of that beef and the one's above, I thought it was assembled well enough, there didn't seem to be issues with the directing or even editing. So yea, if you're in the mood for space-based action this summer, it maybe worth the watch. Not saying it's a great movie, but it was entertaining, which is the whole point. :)

Are you referring to things like P-taps and Lemo's?

Hey Simon, what do you consider an "Arriflex 16" ? S/M, BL? The original SR I/II's have some stability issues for sure. The SR III's don't. I was always told the reasoning was the gate and how the edges moved in the later generations. I understand how the registration pin can be an issue, depending on the interior size of the perf varying. A more standard pulldown system, will only use the bottom edge of the perf for registration alignment, which is a far superior method in a lot of ways. What is your take on the "modern" SRIII's vs the original one's? Also in the case of the bolex, wear and tear is the largest factor for the cameras registration issues.

Gregg, what gives YOU the right to say any of that? It's comments like this, which drive people away, not opinions from an industry professional.

I understand your concern and appreciate you wanting to keep this place as "tidy" as possible. Unfortunately, that will never happen. It doesn't matter how much you jump up and down. It doesn't matter how many times people edit their posts. In the end, we are all posting on our spare time for fun. Mistakes happen and if we constantly dwell on them, if we constantly try to make everything we do or say perfect, there won't be time for anything else. I don't make grammar or spelling mistakes because I know better. I make them because I don't know better. I'm a product of the 21st century American public school system. I never learned my own language very well and honestly, neither have very many other people. So it's not like what you read here is just laziness, it's just not knowing. Once you've embedded poor skills, it's very hard to re-learn. I have tried numerous times, but have failed. In my eyes, if the point gets across, there is no reason to go any further. This forum is not an educational forum on the english language, we are artists and likewise, many of us have spent our lives focused on artistic things, instead of areas (like language) which perhaps, aren't so beneficial to perfect. Our language is visual and I'd rather focus on that, then be constantly berated about simple, unimportant things which have zero bearing on an opinion which is trying to be expressed. You should be thankful, younger people like myself, don't use slang on forums, because we sure as heck do on other internet services.

Stuart, your comments on this matter are unwelcome and unnecessary to the forum. Every single person on this forum (or internet for that matter) makes basic grammar and spelling mistakes, even you. There is nothing productive in point them out repeatedly, it makes you nothing more then a troll and bully, as your comments add noting to the topic at hand. I have tried to ignore you, but next time you derail a thread due to grammar issues, I will have no choice but to report you to the admin. That's how "educators" deal with bad students.

I have another option, just don't read my posts... how about that?

Untuned SR I/II are kinda loud. You've gotta really have perfection, especially when it comes to the magazine, for them to be anywhere near "silent". I remember the big problem with the CP was the magazine. Every one of them squeaked, you were constantly battling that. I have some CP16R demo footage I use on my flatbed and in the close/intimate scenes, you can here the "whirr" of the camera. The BL is a lot louder, I always had to put on a barney to quiet it down. Though I will admit, many scenes we just used a furniture pad or leather jacket. The SR3 is better, I have no idea what they did since it's so similar, but it's a lot quieter. Still I have yet to hear an older camera anywhere near the quietness of the XTR. Even my LTR is "silent" compared to a few of the SR's I've had here in the shop, right next to it on the same day.

The Bolex pulldown system is very unique because it can run forwards and backwards. It's kind of a compromised system in a lot of ways, even though it's pretty ingenious and mechanically works well. Dom hit on the key points... but the critical one that separates the Bolex from the modern Aaton/Arri cameras really comes down to that prism and viewfinder system. It's really hard to focus a Bolex to the level you can of the other, newer cameras. Having spent a great deal of time shooting with both wind up and electronic Bolex cameras, I've not been able to get the stability of the Aaton or Arri cameras. There is always a little bit of jitter, which can be corrected digitally. You just don't get that with the newer cameras. But to answer the question... the difference is really in the stability. The Aaton and Arri gates, pressure plates and pulldown systems are a lot better then the Bolex. That superiority is really what makes the rock stable images we're accustom to seeing from modern S16mm. So gate wobble and focus issues, would be the two deciding factors. Now that modern S16 cameras are so inexpensive, the benefits of the Bolex are becoming less and less. Which is too bad because they're still great little cameras.

There are two ways to go as a filmmaker... make "art" and maybe after 30 years of being broke, figure out how to bridge that gap between "mainstream" and "art". OR you can focus on easier/simpler ways to make "mainstream". Play the "mainstream" game and maybe after a few tries, you've got a career and then you can make anything you want. I live in Hollywood, you can't get more mainstream then this. If I lived in Europe, I'd absolutely think differently. Yet, the only thing that I think of on a regular basis is how people will see my movie, rather then IF they will see it. HOW is the big separation between "art" and "mainstream" because lets face it, the vast majority of "art" movies aren't seen by the public. Also, unlike painting or photographic art, the art cinema community is not as generous with their money. You can't make a product and expect a fan to buy into it. Mainstream products, for better or worse, target general audiences in a way, which if done properly, can be reciprocal. People fund low-budget projects they enjoy watching, which is the "new" crowd funding culture we see today. So yes I agree, you can make a modest and influential piece for low-budget, but who will see it? Your family? Your friends? A few people who accidentally click on it online or pick it up in the $4.99 bin at Walmart? Maybe all that matters is you accomplished something? Today, (thanks to digital technology) it's harder then ever for your little film to stand out in a crowd. As a filmmaker, your "job" isn't to make products anymore, it's to market what you plan on doing months, maybe even years before you do it. Build a fan base before you even know what you have and to do that, you've gotta have something people WANT to see. This is unfortunately the truth of the matter, whether you look at it from the perspective of a random viewer or a businessman investing in your product, it's really no different. All people want in the long run is to make money off YOUR product and if you do all the leg work for free, there is a good chance they may take a gamble on the audience you've built up.

Interesting, yea I'm a pretty big trekkie, haven't missed a "trek" movie in the theater since I was old enough to see them. Tho I will admit, I'm not a fan of the new series, it's at least entertaining popcorn fodder. I also got a discounted ticket from the BluRay of Wrath of Kahn, thanks to your review of the disk, one I throughly enjoyed. :) I'm kinda shocked they didn't do a "IMAX" 1.90:1 version. Cool beans, thanks for the reply! :)

This begs the question, was it worth seeing? Also, was it presented in 2.35:1 or did it fill the screen?

Do you mean people expect something that looks "filmic" when they watch a "movie"? If so, how does that relate to the financial debate.

And then coming out the pulldown claw hole?

Great news! Kinda of exactly what I'm doing here in the states! :)

What that outlaws and angels article points out, it something a lot of people don't discuss when doing a film v digital debate. It's expensive to make digital look like film. So if you WANT that filmic, non-digital look, all of a sudden you're spending quite a bit of money in labor time to create it in post, if you originate on digital. All of that post budget could be pushed towards originating on film and once you realize that good film camera packages are less expensive to rent then like digital packages, a lot of the "expense" of film starts to become a wash. As I've stated a few times on the forum, the price point where it makes sense to shoot film on a narrative feature of some length, is around 250 - 300k. Much under 250k and the cost of film starts to push a few critical things out of your budgets range. It absolutely can be done, but at that point you're either committing to a very short production schedule, very few locations, no major actors, low crew pay and very little money for post/distribution. The absolutely lowest bottom of the barrel 24 day budget (to allow for creative freedom on set) I've been able to build, even on S16, where people are being paid reasonably (so they don't feel abused, with $45k just for P&A, is around $410k. You can easily make a half million dollar movie on S35mm, very, very easily.

Ahh, yea that makes complete sense. I have two 16mm cameras for similar reasons. :)