Tyler Purcell

I mean if it's really as stupid of a plot as it appears to be, then it doesn't matter.

Remember that most films would use the projectors matte for the aspect ratio. So the print comes with a piece of paper that says what size matte to use. So the "roving" aspect ratio is a pretty common occurrence as it would be probably matted to 1.67:1 or 1.85:1.

It's a 4 perf 35mm print most likely. Nobody has horizontal projectors anymore, there were only a few ever made.

Yea, those reflector boards with diffusion work wonders. :)

IB prints are color die transfer, which is a lot more work in the lab, but delivers a far more stable (long term) color image. Standard color print film, has issues with fading over time, even modern stocks. IB prints don't have those issues. This means, a print from even the early days of color, will still retain much of it's original color information decades later. This is why so many people prefer to project them, rather then a "restored" version, which may not look the same. Unfortunately, IB prints were expensive to make, so once color print film took over, they were only used for archiving and/or special circumstances. Technirama is an 8 perf 35mm horizontal format, nearly identical to VistaVision, but with the addition of anamorphic lenses. It was initially designed as a cheaper alternative to 5/70, but the projectors were expensive and only worked with the single format. Most 5/70 projectors also run 35mm, so it was a lot easier for theaters to buy those by-platform rather then one that does a single job like VistaVision/Technirama. In the end, Technirama wound up being a great format for 70mm blow up's and there were many films shot on 8/35 and released in 70mm, though the cinemascope 35mm format wound up being the mainstay release format for most movies.

Thanks for the video. So in my eyes, it looks like a very small amount of light was penetrating around the outside edges of the film. This would most likely be a direct light leak, in line with the film itself. This is why the image pulses until eventually the leak goes away. When you stop the camera, another section of film will get leaked on once more and the same phenomena should happen again. I just got a K3, I don't know much about them, but I have had mine apart entirely, so I'm learning more about it. Honestly, I don't know where a leak of that magnitude could have come from. Light does get under the tray into the spring wind area, so it COULD leak around the edges and into the actual area where the film goes. However, I can't imagine that actually happening. Taping the edges was a good call, I assume you also taped the door handle. Now... I removed the auto thread mechanism from my camera, which left a huge gaping hole leading down into the spring wind area. Maybe there is something similar going on with your camera? Another thing you can do to test any of this, is tape a bright flashlight to the lens mounting area with black gaf tape and then in a dark room, see if any light shines through with the camera running. You MAY see a bit of something coming from the gate area, but everything else should be pitch black. That maybe the first/easiest test. Finally, where did you get the film from? Did you load it onto the 100ft spools?

Can you post a video of the image in motion. It would help diagnosing because how the image moves is important to the diagnosis.

Ok well, the "film" (not shot on film, so it's a movie) looks like crap. First off, no space ship designed for long distance traveling would have high vaulted ceilings and big swaths of empty space. Had the filmmakers used ONLY physical sets instead of augmented green screen sets, they may have built things scientifically more accurate, or maybe not since even "The Martian" got it all wrong. Second, I don't know anything about the movie, but I can tell you exactly what it's about because it's been done so many times before. The corporation that sent those people doesn't want them to be successful, so they purposely set the ship off course. The couple that wake up, do so because some other group behind the mission, wanted someone to save it. Of course, they can't get into the cockpit, hence the big door they're banging on. So they've gotta try to steer the ship another way and of course all hell breaks loose, lots of green screen action which ends happily ever after. Third, it's going to be a failure because nothing released around Rogue One is going to make any money, especially a 120M SciFi film. They should have released it now or waited until early 2017. Fourth, Written by the same bloke who started Prometheus? Can you say yuck? Personally, I'm over how filmmakers treat their audiences. This isn't a SciFi film, it's an action film set in space with a cookie cutter love story hooked on so it appeals to a broader audience.

Looks like a computer game engine 3d environment with people standing on a green screen stage.

Mostly all Alexa shows are less then 4k, yet I've seen many projected in 4k.

What's humorous is that I haven't seen any real difference in the standard Alexa vs Alexa 65. I've tried to see a difference, but the field of view advantage of the larger imager and higher resolution, really make no difference when lens selection doesn't benefit the imager and the final output is 2k at your local theater. What kills me about this whole larger imager boom is that nobody cares about theatrical distribution. It proves all they care about is how cool it is to shoot with the "new toy". If they cared about quality, they'd call up Panavision and shoot on 5/65 which no matter what, is higher resolution in the theater then digital format available today. As a side note, Texas Instruments, the soul manufacturer of DLP imagers, is struggling to make one any larger then 4k. They have tried and there are huge issues with building such a large grid of mirrors.

How is the condition of the battery? Have you tried charging it?

With a magazine AND film?

Movies that any of us will see in our local multiplex, on average are more expensive then they've ever been. This means the risk is greater for the financiers. So modern 'pop' theatrical movies, are made specifically to get their money back. Filmmakers learned a long time ago, if you throw a bunch of crap at an audiences face, keep the pacing fast, keep the cutting fast, they don't have time to process what's happening. When the brain can't process something, it's impossible to dwell on the details. This means, people will leave the theaters happy about their experience and spread the word. Remember, word of mouth is still the most powerful advertising available today. If you trust someone and they say something is good, generally people will want to experience whatever that person says is good. Once you set precedence, once people "expect" entertainment to be a certain way at the cinema, it's hard to reverse that trend. Sure, there are plenty of filmmakers who get their movies released in the theaters who don't follow those trends, but they are much less risky productions. At home, people are willing to accept something different, as some of today's best home watching content is very slow. I mean, there were episodes of 'Stranger Things' where nothing happened, yet I was perfectly content sitting for an hour watching it. The other thing to think about is the fact these shows for home are made in digestible, bite-sized segments. There is nothing to opening up your laptop, logging into Netflix and watching an episode before bed. It's a whole other world, leaving the house to see a movie at the theater. The divide between the "art" movies and "entertainment" movies has also expanded in recent years. If you sit down and watch a modern "art" movie, even the winners of international awards, it's sometimes hard to watch them. Whether it's pacing or simply story structure and not enough plot to keep the audience engaged, they are clearly very different then the cookie cutter, formulaic theatrical crap we make here in the states today. Finding that happy medium between "art" and "entertainment" is what makes for success in my book. I think my train of thought just left the station...

1. DaVinci= Balance color per shot 2. DaVinci= Add external corrector layer to generate the tint per shot 3. DaVinci= Add external corrector layer to generate highlight softness 4. AE = Add jitter .5 should do 5. AE = Overlay 16mm film grain/noise (download this for free online)

Yea I have heard of consumer cameras using every trick in the book to make them more "efficient" sensitivity wise.

Scanners make a much bigger difference on S16 then 35mm. Not very many scanners use the full imager on S16, so you're already "cropping" the digital side of things. Plus, a lot of the older S16 movies, where blown up photochemically and finished on 35mm. There is actually a loss of "crispness" during that process as well. I made a thread about the movie Anthropoid not looking very good, but most of that was due to the filmmakers not using much light and pushing the format to places it shouldn't be going. Plus it was finished in 2k, so it was a jagged/pixilated mess of digital disgustingness. If you're gonna shoot 16mm and you want it to look good, you've gotta use modern glass and you've gotta light the crap out of it so you don't have to push the stock in post. You've then gotta scan it using a machine that uses the full imager and use a full 4k workflow from start to finish. Then you'll have "crispness" just like 35mm.

Interesting, good to know! :) Yea, 180 - 200 ain't much, but still good to know.

Do you mean the days of non mirrored reflex? Or did they make a mirrored reflex with 200 deg adjustable shutter?

Yea, but again... the variables of what you see online are too great. The only way to do a real proper test is to do a real proper test. You can't really compare with random clips from multiple sources, not fully knowing the workflow that went behind them and of course, not having a calibrated high-quality display system. Obviously 2 perf 35mm has less grain then 16mm for similar frame aspect ratio, but I was only commenting on 16mm's ability to look "crisp" because it CAN, especially with today's technology. I just feel people who shoot with it, aren't interested in that look.

But can't be played back in Pro Tools or Logic. Also, nobody uses MPEG for editing intermediates. In fact, my roommate works for one of the top archiving/distribution companies in L.A. and they don't accept MPEG, only Pro Res and sometimes DNX. There really isn't an MPEG format, exportable by a computer that can compete with Pro Res because the workable i-Frame formats are limited in bandwidth. You can't just turn it up if you want less compression noise, you're stuck to whatever compression scheme the format is. Pro Res and DNX are variable bit rate codec's, so depending on how hard you hit them, they will compensate and keep the quality high. Plus, there are a much wider rage of compression schemes to choose from. Also, because Pro Res is a CPU based codec, it doesn't require a fast GPU for playback, making it perfect for post production where your GPU will be busy doing on the fly rendering. I'll also mention that Pro Res XQ is a lossless codec.

Mpeg Stream Clip can open the back door of quicktime and encode Pro Res no problem at all. Though that would be on a mac and not a PC. I think the PC version, has no access to quicktime. Bigger problem is I believe Mpeg Stream Clip strips the source of timecode. So when you export, you won't have any reference, which is a problem.

I have a feeling your correct about that. The "shutter" may have zero actual effect because the imager has already pulsed it's data. I would assume Sony wouldn't make a mistake like that, but you could be right. I would agree because the Alexa with the standard ol' film camera shutter, doesn't really look any different then the Alexa without it. Again, I think their design was to give an optical viewfinder, rather then a mechanical shutter for the imager. Exactly, which is my point from above. People are pushing the sensitivity levels of the cameras, so they're running lower shutter speeds/greater shutter angles. I don't believe anyone made a film camera that runs angles higher then 180 deg.

Well sure, but "crispness" really does come from lensing and ISO. Again, if your shooting 500 ISO on 16mm, you're asking for softness. If you shoot 50 ISO, it looks much better and you CAN get crispness out of it. People just don't shoot that way, so it's hard/rare to give you an example of what that could look like. It doesn't... in fact, I've done quite a bit of 50 ISO testing recently and it looks great. When I have the time/money, I will transfer some of it so you guys can see. :)

United 93 was 35mm, with certain moments in 16mm.