Tyler Purcell

It was actually pretty widely used because it was easy to blow up to 70mm. So a few of the big roadshow 70mm films, were originated on 35mm Technirama. I've actually been picking up and watching as many as I can recently. Spartacus is absolutely one of the best, but there are some other great ones in there. Zulu, Pink Panther, Music Man, El Cid, King of Kings and Circus World. I had never seen Circus World until recently and it's pretty cool as well. Some of the other films were only printed to 35mm, so they didn't have the phenomenal 4 channel stereo mix and haven't quite retained the image quality of the films that were blown up to 70mm like Spartacus and Circus World. Yea, its already kinda bulky as it is... smaller then I expected, but still pretty big. Part of the reason for the noise is the straight metal gears most likely. That's one of the things that makes so many cameras loud. The movement itself maybe not that loud, but the base of the camera where all the mechanics are, will be killer. Obviously nothing else is setup for quietness either, so even the magazine drive will be louder then it could be. I just don't like big boxes around cameras if it can be avoided, but for those intimate interiors with dialog, it maybe worth building a blimp, if you can make it out of fiberglass or plastic. Make it only a tiny bit bigger then the camera and just stuff it with insulating. That mixed with a little bit of internal insulation, may make it quiet enough. The other way to go is ADR obviously, but if you're doing a bigger project, that becomes a big tricky. Since so many filmmakers are becoming use to IMAX cameras, which are WAY bigger... and so are the 70mm quiet cameras... it makes sense that the VistaVision camera MAY be a great opportunity IF it could work in that scenario.

Digital technology for acquisition has been around for decades now, it's not really new anymore. Even if you take into account modern digital cinema, most products are still being distributed in the original 2k resolution of the FIRST digital cinema formats, developed 20 years ago. Also, there really isn't much if any celluloid waste. People don't throw film into the garbage. Plus, it can be melted down and used to make other products. So the idea there is any real celluloid waste is not founded on any ground. By contrast, as Kenny pointed out, there is HUGE waste in digital. Lets start with batteries... the modern lithium batteries are tremendously environmentally unfriendly manufacturing wise. Most people just throw them into the trash when they stop working. Then you think about digital technology ever evolving and how everyone needs the newest/best thing. What happened to all those DV cameras from the 90's and early 2000s? Everyone had one, they didn't disappear. Today more people have cameras then ever before and even people who work in cinema, have multiple cameras, all of which are bought and sold on a regular basis. How long does it take for one of them to become obsolete? Today everyone wants to shoot on 4k, but what about that perfectly good F900 for instance? Those cameras are being sold for junk on ebay right now. If they can't be sold, it will be off to the recycler for them. You can go out and make a movie on a 100 year old film camera right now if you want and since the "consumable" (film) is what defines the look, it's easy to make it look like a modern movie. All you need is modern stock and glass. The box you use to shoot it with, plays a very small role, unlike digital where the box is everything.

Cool thanks for sharing the video. Yea, I love VistaVision, especially the Technirama anamorphic version. You can obtain an amazing field of view with such a large frame size. I've always wanted to figure out a way to make VistaVision workable as a sync sound camera, because I think if it was, it would be more used. As you well know, the blimps used for the older VistaVision cameras were huge. Today with such a small camera, you'd think it would be pretty easy to isolate SOME of the noise through internal padding. It really depends on how much room there is internally. Where did you guys wind up getting the camera from?

Good ideas and I think it will work fine. How loud is the camera? Like 60db? I haven't heard one running before.

Yea, it's hardware downscaled using the full imager.

Cool project! What are you planning to do about the sound issues (camera loudness) inherent with shooting on VistaVision without a huge blimp?

Mandy has kinda been crap for years anyway. I've had more legitimate gigs off craigslist then Mandy. It's true that a small fee to post and a small fee to check listings, does get rid of the riffraff. There is far more abuse of the system when it's completely free.

I will also congratulate you on finishing a feature, it's really tough! I'm in the middle of shooting/editing two right now! I'm going to make a few notes... 1- The transition idea unfortunately doesn't work well because it feels wrong, as if there is a technical glitch, rather then a creative one. Because there is a dip in black level, it really feels glitchy. 2- The audio is a big problem, not just the trailer music, but the set audio... it has no punch, like it was recorded with the built-in camera mic. 3- Blocking... this is the process of determining where actors are put in a shot in relationship to their environment and how the camera covers the action. Many shots were oddly blocked and when you show a shot of someone's head in a trailer, it makes the movie look worse then it maybe is. All the other technical and acting issues are self evident, but it's to be expected with any ultra-low production and in a lot of cases, can't be fixed easily without money. However, those things I pointed out are things people pick up on very easily and are pretty easy to fix during production. Good luck with the next phase of the project! Editing and then finding a hope for your product is in a lot of cases, far more difficult then even making it. So just be mindful of that as you go along this next phase.

Can you take a snapshot of the get info tab from your quicktime player. I would also love to see it working in FCP7. Nobody I know can get XQ to work in FCP7 and even my contacts at Apple say it's impossible. So what you have there is absolute magic. Maybe there is some odd old/new plugin combo that's making it work? Very strange. I would love to figure it out because I have clients who still use FCP7 and they'd love to playback XQ natively, but currently can't.

Yea, Apple released a codec update this year, that addressed XQ in quicktime based programs like Premiere. However, it's still incompatible with windows and linux machines. So yes, on a 100% updated Mac OS machine, running the absolute latest software, it does work in the newest version of Premiere, Final Cut X and DaVinci. However, what you can do with it is very limited. In fact, on my bay, I can't even open XQ in quicktime, I can only use it in an editor of some kind, as if it needs something the editor does the player doesn't. This is one of the clues of how different XQ is to standard 4444. I playback standard Pro Res 4444 without any issues in Quicktime player, all day, any day.

Sorry? I mean nobody else has brought a lick of evidence to prove anything they believe either. I spent 20 minutes checking the facts I posted on wikipedia and it was all there. Unfortunately, it's too spread out to copy and past sections and links, it's kind messy with no direct connections on there, which sucks.

Please stop picking on every single post I make. I will gladly make a thread to discuss my involvement but it has nothing to do with this topic or the other topics you question my even existence.

They probably don't work with camera originals for their entire cutting. They most likely moved to a mezzanine format during the physical editing of the projects and then brought the XQ media online for finishing.

The reason we have to use a form of LOG is because the recording format doesn't have the range of the imager, like raw does. Otherwise we could just capture full bandwidth gamut. At the same time, you can record full gamut with XQ.

One of them was the development of the Marvel products. I worked as a development creative consultant with a small team of people. This has nothing to do with making a movie, it's all the prep work to convince a studio on what to make and how it will be sold and marketed. I was dragged along to the meetings with studio execs and even asked to speak on a few occasions. Unfortunately I had a falling out with the owners of the company after I got a full time job I couldn't refuse. It was a lot of fun, but it was almost entirely spec work, so money wasn't consistent.

I was on the beta team for pro res 4444. I know more about the codecs then most people do because I was trained by the guys who actually wrote the code, via Skype of course. So Larry Jordan's ancillary comments aren't very valid. He does mention in his final amendment that XQ is the only pro res codec with REC2020 color space. But what he doesn't say is that each color is compressed separately and displayed separately, unlike the standard 4444 pro res. So it works entirely different then the other codecs. As a professional post production specialist who works with XQ every day, I can tell you how entirely different the workflow is. Unlike 4444 which easily drops into all the modern editors, XQ needs to be converted and/or modified to be used. It works more like a single file raw workflow.

If the cable companies aren't a monopoly, then what I describe is no way a monopoly. Heck time warner, my cable provider, owns TV networks, prevents other content providers from distributing their networks. They block any other internet provider from coming near my neighborhood and worst off, they force people to buy packages of content they don't need or want. Plus kill package deals without informing the consumer. If you want to talk about manipulative and monopolistic practices, time warner is at the top of that list and they get away with murder because they pay off the right people in government. If you think the industry isn't controlled by the distribution methods, I don't know what to say.

Actually the color space of pro res XQ is entirely different. I work with it all the time and it has a much higher range then the limited rec709.

4444 pro res isn't the same as Pro Res XQ. Most people I work with shoot XQ on the Alexa. It is not a rec709 format. It actually records a larger color space then 709. Its nearly identical to RAW with the Alexa.

Well, they are. It's hard to find the data but if you search Wikipedia and read through all the text, you will see the acquisition dates. There are no laws stating the owners of the theaters can control the content they put into those theaters. In fact the anti trust law is just the opposite... The studios controlling the theaters. Yes, the big blockbuster movies are made by committee and in the executive meetings are representatives from AMC who give their input. So not only are the people pitching properties going after the studios, but the theaters themselves. Mind you, I've been in those meetings as a creative advisor, so you can say anything you want, I've been there and seen the whole process from building marketing look books pre green light, through the final release.

Regal, Cinemark and AMC are all owned by the same Chinese company. If they choose not to show your movie, for whatever reason, you're screwed in the US. So they have THE BIGGEST impact on what movies are made in this country because without them, there is no theatrical release. Also, the same Chinese group that owns those theaters, also funds many of the big blockbusters, but through a subsidiary, so it doesn't seem monopolistic. When you start digging, you start seeing the connections. I can't just copy and paste stuff, this is something I've studied over the years and learned from my industry friends. You can choose to believe them or not, but they have no reason to lie.

And today a lot of that money leaves the country, thanks to the US government allowing the kind of multinational ownership of almost every major industry, including entertainment. The days of the big fat white execs making mega bux, are actually starting to slip away. They're all indebted to other's today.

Take one of the rolls to FotoKem and have them to a fog test. This will tell you how far the stock has degraded and it will give the stock a physical grade, so you know how it's doing. Generally speaking, stock starts to go bad in 5 years if stored in the refrigerator. So you should be fine. Do a the fog test and let us know what it comes back like.

Yes, the theaters own the studio's. Do some research. I'm not trying to prove a conspiracy. I'm merely saying there is more to this puzzle then meets the eye, including some HUGE Chinese companies wanting a piece of America. That's correct, but imagine if an artist could only paint with water color. What if all the other types of drawing and painting stopped existing? There would be some issues now wouldn't there. To kill off a medium due to big businesses making decisions outside of the creatives who MAKE the product, is just flat out insanity. Man, I grew up in a house that was originally constructed in 1770 and re-built in the mid 1880's. Do you think any of the structures we make today are going to last 200 years? Yes, vintage is more authentic because it's proven. It's been around the block and back, yet survived. It's not a "hipster" thing, I have dozens of friends who feel the same way I do. There is a certain essence, a certain feel about "vintage" that is disappearing very rapidly, to the detriment of society. Again, it's about having options. If I want to live in a 200 year old house, I can. But if I want to make a movie using an older technology, I'm going to be shown the door. How does that work?

Sorry, I mistyped... My point in that statement was diversity; more brick and mortar locations in diverse locations.