Tyler Purcell

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.

David, that data is "screens" not "theaters" I'm referring to "theaters" the actual physical buildings. The small-town theaters that couldn't afford to make the switch, either went out of business or were sold to big theater chains like AMC, Cinemark and Regal. These guys own more then half the theaters in this country, basically making a borderline monopoly. They made deals with Sony to get projectors on lease, stuff that mom and pop theaters couldn't do. Again, this whole thing was a power play by these companies, who control the studio's and distributors. They wanted to buy up all those little theaters, kick the mom and pop's out, get rid of the projectionists and ready for this shocker... MAKE MORE PROFITS! You do know that 2015 was the most profitable year for the studio's and theater companies since the 90's!

Not really, they both closed due to predicting the future. It was a thought. I was questioning the idea of theaters paying for prints and if they HAD been allowed to do that, would film projection stuck around. I disagree, on anything going theatrical, digital has been nothing but a costly mess. Most digital screens as of the end of 2015, are still LOWER RESOLUTION then good anamorphic 35mm film prints. For gosh sakes, just talk to the guys on film-tech in the digital section on how they have to defocus the projectors because the fixed pattern imagers, are distracting to audience members. What kind of technology does "softening" the image, make it better? Plus, as I said earlier.... What good is a technology if less people can use it? If there are LESS theaters as a consequence of the technology change, how does that help the distributors? You'd think they'd want MORE screens showing their movies. But today, there are physically less screens out there, then prior to the digital push. Film stopped evolving after digital audio came out in what, the mid 90's. Sure, there were slightly less grainy stocks made, but that's really the extent of the technology burst. High Definition digital cinematography has been around since the late 90's and today this exact moment, we're still using an almost identical resolution!!! Yes, camera prices have gone down, imagers have gotten better, we have higher resolution formats as well, but the net result is still a 2k image! So in almost 20 years, what the consumer sees at the theater, is almost identical to what the system started with 20 years ago during the first Toy Story movie. When the industry is shooting and projecting in 8k, I will relax a bit... because then they will finally be up to the quality of film (5/70 or 15/70). But until then, digital hasn't even come close to the quality of those formats. Heck, when IMAX went digital, they had to make the screen smaller not because they couldn't develop a 1.45:1 display and playback device, but because the quality wouldn't be good enough. SO now even in IMAX, you're seeing sub-par quality compared to formats that have been around since the 50's! So again, what "technological" breakthrough has actually made ANY difference at the box office? The reason we have crap movies is a direct effect of the technology boom. People are so interested in playing with tech and not simply telling a story, that's what people expect to see and every film has to out-do one another on the tech side. The "tech" (which includes all digital technology from acquisition to visual effects to distribution) should be thrown out the window with the sunday trash. I don't see ANY benefit, only detractors. There are many filmmakers who went digital and are slowly starting to turn around and go back to grass roots again. I can see the "fun" of technology slowly weaning but the problem is, those filmmakers can't go back to film projection and photochemical finish because when the time came for them to speak up, they were so busy playing with new toys, nobody made a big enough stink. It wasn't until all the big labs closed and Kodak filed bankruptcy, that people stood up to make a difference. By that point, it was too late and what we have now is a limited art form... everything and I mean everything we do, MUST be digital at some part of it's life. This does not give filmmakers any option what so ever and its very disheartening. All I want are options, that's it! If a filmmaker wants to distribute on 35, there should be a path to doing so and today, there really isn't.

Because most Indy filmmakers, make poop without even contemplating what they're doing to do with it. I get so frustrated when I see it happening or I work on projects like that. I know for fact, they will never go anywhere. Not because they're broke, but because they simply don't understand the concept of demand and supply. They just think "hey lets make something" and they never think of the consequences of their actions. As I preach so much on here and in my classes, you must understand your audience, genre and how you're going to make money from your "product" before you even contemplate making it. To me, that's most people don't understand and why so many talented people wind up giving up before they make it.

Yea, I mean most people make more money then I do, so that's not saying much! LOL :P You are, once again, an anomaly. I can't think of anyone whose had the success you've had, in your situation. It's great you can do it, but it's so far from the norm, you could literally be one of 5 people doing it. So if you wish to talk about myopic scales, your situation is .0001%. I'd bundle film and TV together today... but yes I know a lot of people who are scratching at the million per year number working on "productions" of various kinds, in different positions. Everything from union truck drivers who double dip and work in the grip union at the same time, making close to 10k a week... to editors making $250k per show and doing 2 - 4 per year. Heck, even DIT's on big shows are making $5k a week + rental fee's. This kind of work is MUCH rarer outside of the hollywood system. Not saying it's impossible, I know plenty of people who work at production companies around the US who do commercial work of some kinda, who rake in some pretty decent bux. However, it's a myopic number compared to those raking it in here in hollywood. In this thread we were talking about waste, this is just a great example of such and the wages for these "top" people, just keep going up and up! It's kinda disgusting when you think about the disparity of wages for the same position between Indy and Studio films.

Do you make a million dollars a year? That's how much my counterparts make on Hollywood movies. Yes a quick mil a year! Can't find that on any Indy movie.

The big theater chains own the studios.

Prints were $1500 a pop for most movies. Plus, a lot of theaters were already digital. So print use was already decreasing at an exponential rate. That's very true, but at the same time the demand only went away because people were forced to change. There was a deadline set of the end of 2013 for all theaters to be digital. Actually technicolor and Deluxe went under at nearly the same time at the end of 2013 I believe. Both for different reasons, but both labs were busy making prints the weeks before the cut off date. They were fully working facilities with no reason to shut their doors. Technicolor didn't want to invest in another lease and Deluxe's owner, felt film was dead, so they closed up shop. Had there not been a single date... had there been leeway for theaters to PAY for their own prints, instead of the studio's (many would have done that), this problem would have never happened. We'd still have prints today. Instead the studio's promised the theaters more profits and less money spent, but in the long run, the theaters pay MORE for showing movies then they did with film prints and the cost to maintain the digital projectors his higher. So in the end, it's FAR more expensive for everyone to do digital distribution then film distribution, that's why the ticket prices have skyrocketed. In the end, the industry is dying very fast. It's dying because the ticket prices are high, which is a direct result of this move from film to digital. Had the status quo continued, with a slow ramp up to digital over 20 years, things would be very different today and I bet ticket prices would be A LOT less then they are today.

Yea, I always forget about the SAG AFTRA deal, that was a huge turning point. Still... the ending of release prints closed many theaters, there were plenty of prints being made, it was just less quantity. Had the labs stuck around, we'd have choices/options for theatrical runs and theaters that couldn't afford digital projectors. It's not that simple though, when you rip the labs to shreds, it's over. Those lower end theaters that switched to digital, they have worse equipment then people at home do. It was a HUGE downgrade for those people and it really sucks. It was those theaters the studio's wanted to put out of business in the long run, they hate those low-price places. So in the end, they got their wish and no more film, so no more small theaters. Plus, 150,000 jobs were lost between 2009 and 2013. Shippers, lab technicians, projectionists, service technicians... all gone. Now some computer nerd sets up the digital projectors. Lame. :(

You may despise hollywood, but unfortunately the only "REAL" money to be had in this industry is through them. If you wanna mess around for fun and make a few grand in the process, it doesn't matter what you do. If you wish to make real money, Hollywood is unfortunately the only way to go for the time being. Most "indy" filmmakers today have regular jobs and rarely make much off their movies. They hope that someday someone will see what they make and allow them to make something bigger. However, at that point, you will be in the hollywood system. It sucks, but it's how things work.

You're absolutely right Phil, but from what I've heard, film's disappearance was highly political. There is absolutely more going on behind the scenes then meets the eye. You don't just close all the big labs in the world simultaneously and physically destroy the only two high speed duplicators left, unless you really want something gone. The stories I've heard from many different people are absolutely disgusting. How DeLuxe literally rolled both 70mm flatbeds into a garbage can for the insurance money for instance.