Tyler Purcell

And it's a negative?

Yea, so my "guess" is that you have all the elements to make an interpositive. Riddle me this, does the film labeled optical negative have splices?

The FLAC file would be your best option if the original mag recordings from the 80's don't exist. Where the FLAC file came from is probably of concern however because that's a newer file format, not around in the 80's. Does this piece of film have picture, or is it just soundtrack? Optical negative refers to soundtrack only. Optical composite refers to soundtrack and picture married.

Welcome to "real" production. This is why people can't make $20k movies, because to get anyone who actually knows how to act or be professional on a set, most of the time you're having to deal with one or multiple unions. Union guidelines for SAG adult actors are there to protect from abuses because filmmakers WILL abuse if they can. Child actors have a whole host of other rules and regulations, which are expensive to deal with. From hiring a studio teacher and having a private classroom on location, to having an assistant to the 2nd AD, known as a 2nd 2nd, just to deal with the paperwork on most productions with kids. I just wrapped my 2nd production with kids and it was a real pain to deal with, but we made it work. It cost us around $40k in lost time, fee's and extra union staffing, in order to make it work. However, when you're making a kids movie for real, no weekend warrior bullshit, that's how you NEED to operate. If you use common sense, dealing with SAG actors isn't a problem. You hire a UPM who is familiar with it and you're done. Their assistant takes care of everything and you as the filmmaker simply pay them the money. This is the separation between church and state, in this case production management and "creative" filmmaking. The two jobs are lightyears apart from one another. You are either a businessman dealing with the business aspects like a UPM, putting out fires all day long or you're a filmmaker, dealing with the creative side. Mixing both jobs is nearly impossible. You can't be shooting a movie and dealing with paperwork. One more thing to remember, Sag actors don't have to work under Sag to be on your movie.

I have no idea what a printmaster is. Maybe your referring to an interpositive or internegative, both of which prints are struck from? Also, there hasn't been a sound on film 4 track format in decades, Fox used one for 35mm distribution in the late 50's and 60's and it re-surfaced over the years for special releases. Modern audio on film is either optical (2 track with matrix multiplexing for "surround") or 6 track compressed digital of various kinds. None of those formats would be anywhere near the quality of the original audio files. So if your question is pulling audio off the optical or digital soundtracks of your interpositive or internegative, it's always better to use the original mixed source. In fact, even on older films audio is generally pulled from the magnetic 3 track or 6 track master, rather then the audio tracks on film. You've gotta go back pretty far in film history to only have the optical audio tracks as "masters".

Yea my lenses are all B mount to go along with the Aaton mount film camera I have. I do have PL adaptors for the Optar primes, but no PL camera. :( The school I teach at has PL mount cine lenses, so I may buy a PL adaptor to MFT just to have it, that would be fun to play around with. Though I will admit, the S16 glass is "good enough" for the lil pocket. In terms of the Pocket's resolution, 1080 is a bit weak sauce today. 4k would be amazing, but I think it would be impossible and retain the feature set/physical size. However, "realistically" they could make a 2.5k version, which would allow for a better debayer. I have asked the folks at Blackmagic many times about updates to the pocket and I fret, they aren't going to make any. The company only looks forward and it doesn't look like they'll visit that camera size again.

Ohh! If only I had a PL adaptor! That's kinda cheating! HAHAHA :P

Where this is true for most physical production on set, it's not true for all the other jobs outside of those few production days. Most production is W2 because if you are being directed to do a job from another individual, you are an "employee" no matter what. However, everything else from pre-production, post-production and distribution, which are 90% of the work, if those people are not on set or working in business environment with a direct supervisor working with them at all times, they are 1099. There are plenty of smaller, good paying gigs which are 1099 or simply cash under the table. If these kind of productions are you only income source, then you don't have much of a choice, volunteering doesn't pay the bills unfortunately. As a contractor getting a job done and hoping on the next show you get called back... why would you shoot yourself in the foot by being an butt and call-out the production company on bad business practices? Not only would you loose all that time and effort you put in, but you'd probably be blacklisted as well. Filmmaking is a freelance industry. If you get paid and you get more work in the future from the same production company, you should be happy and continue working for them. How they choose to pay you, has absolutely zero consequence in the long term.

It's a good question. I personally don't like the look of digital camera motion blur. It softens the image considerably when the camera or subject is moving. Also, as you pointed out, I've struggled greatly to reduce the imagers sensitivity. Since I aim for more cinematic "filmic" images, I try to remove as many digital-looking elements from my shoots as I can. I find the higher shutter speed trick to help. I agree with you, there is absolutely some upper highlight latitude lost when on anything else but 800 ISO. However, 800 ISO is grainy as all get out and you can't over-expose to help compensate for that or you're get major color balance shift. So when shooting outdoors in direct sunlight, the only thing you can do is reduce the ISO. In any direct or reflective sunlight scenes, I'll protect highlights by reducing the stop. I run my zebras at 70% and use that as my main guide to exposure. If the zebra's are just slightly visible, I know it's ok. If they're very visible, the shot will be blown out. The histogram isn't quite that sensitive and I rely on it when the zebra's don't help, like shooting with limited lighting indoors. My material has little noise as a consequence and thanks to modern coloring tools, it's easy to compensate for lack of the best dynamic range in post by brining up the darker areas. If you shoot at 800 ISO and filter the living crap out of the camera to compensate, the darks are very noisy. You don't have the latitude in the darks to bring it up at all. From 800 to 200, I think there is around 2 stops of upper latitude loss. So if you shoot 1 stop under exposed, using those zebras as your guide, protecting those highlights like you would on a CCD camera. Your darks are MUCH LESS noisy then 800 ISO and you can bring them up in post to compensate. I frankly don't have enough ND filtration to work outdoors in direct sunlight at 800 ISO and 180 deg shutter.

So earlier in the summer, I had the opportunity to shoot a feature-length BTS film on the making of the feature I'm currently editing... if that makes any sense. It was a great opportunity to test somethings I hadn't tried before, including using real Super 16 cinema lenses with my pocket camera. When I initially purchased the pocket, I couldn't afford real cine glass, so I bought Rokinon EF primes and an adaptor. These lenses work great and honestly, I have very little complaint with everything from the 24mm and up. It's the wider lenses which suck. So when I stumbled upon a Super 16 rig for sale, with a bunch of real cine glass, I bought it up and have recently started experimenting with the output. Today's post is all about the Zeiss 10-100 zoom lens, modified with an Optex 1.2x extender so it will cover the S16 frame, making the lens a 12-120. I will post more videos as time goes on with different lenses as a comparison. I was having trouble getting my rather large mattebox and filters to set on my motorcycle, so on days with direct sunlight where I needed the filters, I was using this lens and it's MUCH SMALLER mattebox that doesn't fit on the Rokinon's + 3x3 filter kit. Almost everything else was shot with the Rokinon primes, mainly because I could throw the camera around more and not worry about damaging them. The filters I use are a glass 3x3 .9 ND and on some shots with direct sun, a plastic gradient. You can see the grad very clearly on the shot of the guy with the hat talking. Usually I bring the grad up in the holder to prevent that, but I didn't in that particular take. Most everything in this video is shot with the pocket camera @ 200ISO, 45 deg shutter, 6000k white point and 23.98. There is ONE SHOT of our lead actress pushing her face against a horse which was shot very early in the morning and it's more noisy, thanks to using 800 ISO and no filtration. Using LOG recording in Pro Res HQ, this video was compiled from quick selects dragged into DaVinci, factory Blackmagic Pocket LUT applied (V2) and minor tweak to bring in more blue, as it always comes out overly warm thanks to the 6k white setting, which I personally prefer. There are no finishing tricks or filters applied in post. This is as direct from the camera you can get. Every shot under 100 and above 0 IRE. Also, all of these shots are hand held, only using a mono pod for stability. Again, riding to work on my motorcycle, couldn't fit a tripod or shoulder rig. Any shot with direct open sky, was underexposed by a stop to help preserve the sky and you can tell how well that trick works in the second shot with the blue sky and clouds. Here is the drop box link for playback and remember, when you're done watching, please delete off your computer. You can also download the material to see it in full resolution. I did notice my computers are playing the file back in 8 bit on the displays, which is odd. In DaVinci or on the AJA card monitor output, it's 10 bit. https://www.dropbox.com/s/xonfgpua4u2kqyn/Blackmagic%20Pocket%20with%20Zeiss%2012-120.mov?dl=0 Here is the rig on set:

Here are a few select clips from the feature-length BTS film I shot and probably won't be editing. These clips are private property and are not available for public viewing, so please don't post this link anywhere else. These are select shots where I used the Zeiss 10-100 zoom lens, modified with an Optex 1.2x extender so it will cover the S16 frame, making the lens a 12-120. I use this lens on my Aaton S16 camera, but I was having trouble getting my rather large mattebox and filters to set on my motorcycle, so on days with direct sunlight where I needed the filters, I was using this lens and it's MUCH SMALLER mattebox that doesn't fit on the Rokinon's + 3x3 filter kit. Almost everything else was shot with the Rokinon primes, mainly because I could throw the camera around more and not worry about damaging them. The filters I use are a glass 3x3 .9 ND and on some shots with direct sun, a plastic gradient. You can see the grad very clearly on the shot of the guy with the hat talking. Usually I bring the grad up in the holder to prevent that, but I didn't in that particular take. Most everything in this video is shot with the pocket camera @ 200ISO, 45 deg shutter, 6000k white point and 23.98. There is ONE SHOT of our lead actress pushing her face against a horse which was shot very early in the morning and it's more noisy, thanks to using 800 ISO and no filtration. Using LOG recording in Pro Res HQ, this video was compiled from quick selects dragged into DaVinci, factory Blackmagic Pocket LUT applied (V2) and minor tweak to bring in more blue, as it always comes out overly warm thanks to the 6k white setting, which I personally prefer. Also, all of these shots are hand held, only using a mono pod for stability. Again, riding to work on my motorcycle, couldn't fit a tripod or shoulder rig. Any shot with direct open sky, was underexposed by a stop to help preserve the sky and you can tell how well that trick works in the second shot with the blue sky and clouds. Here is the drop box link for playback and remember, when you're done watching, please delete off your computer. You can also download the material to see it in full resolution. I did notice my computers are playing the file back in 8 bit on the displays, which is odd. In DaVinci or on the AJA card monitor output, it's 10 bit. https://www.dropbox.com/s/xonfgpua4u2kqyn/Blackmagic%20Pocket%20with%20Zeiss%2012-120.mov?dl=0 Here is the rig on set:

Jay is right, it was almost entirely front with one rear channel. Having just watched a few 70mm films from that era, they really only used the rear channels for echo, rather then effects.

Yea, those first few shots for sure look like film. I wonder if part of the story is on film or something. It's amazing how even in a low-res trailer, you can tell simply due to the motion blur of a camera move. Rest of it looks great, maybe worth seeing in the theaters.

Yes that's right, I forgot Oklahoma came before Around the world. :)

One of my favorite movies. It was the first movie to be made in the Todd-AO process, which is pretty much the 5/65 standard, but a shot in a defunct 30FPS format. Todd-AO was the first to incorporate 6 track magnetic sound onto the 70mm prints. So Around the World in 80 days in 1956, was one of the first true 5/70 6 track release. For technical historical value alone, the film is absolutely worth watching.

I use my S16 cine lenses on my blackmagic pocket camera all the time. The S16 12-120 does have a tiny bit of vignetting when all the way wide, but it's not bad. When I have time, I was going to post something about using that lens on the pocket.

Yea, I'd say that's your issue! A lot of those inexpensive H16's are double perf, that's why they're so cheap.

Depends on your definition of slow. A lot of people consider two stops to be the difference between fast and slow. An F1.5 prime vs F3.5 zoom for instance. Most of the Canon zoom lenses are between F3 and F4, so they're not exactly "fast". Also, most of the longer zooms, get slower as you zoom. So full wide they maybe F3, but zoomed in, they're more like F4.5. Also, Canon DSLR zooms are not parfocal. If you zoom all the way in on a subject, get focus and zoom out, they won't retain that focus. This is one many character traits that make DSLR glass more tricky to use with video.

Gordon Willis for sure, those Woody Allen films look amazing.

I have most of the Rokinon's under 85mm and they're not bad for the pocket camera. The wider lenses are a bit slow and super soft, I'd say everything from the 24mm and up is fine though. If you want wide angle stuff, I'd just source some S16 cinema primes like the older Arri or Optar. I absolutely love the 12-120 S16 zoom on the pocket. It's a worthwhile investment augmented with S16 cine primes or Rokinon's. I don't like non-cinema DSLR glass, even older, because the focus system isn't designed properly for focusing whilst shooting and the zoom ratio is all wrong as well. So you can buy cheap DSLR glass, most of it looks ok, but just don't expect it to work as smoothly as cinema glass. In terms of slow-mo, there are some really cool plugin's that solve the problem.

Do the pulses speed up or slow down based on where you are in the reel, or is it identical from start of reel to end?

I bet they've thought about it for rich people.

No problem, you've just showed your true colors once more. Alright guys, I've learned my lesson. I thought we were having a conversation, but we aren't. I'm being dragged on the seabed once more for entertainment purposes. It's a real shame that's how you treat fellow filmmakers, but that's the internet I guess. I thought people who worked in this industry were above this sort of abuse.

What kills me is that we're stilling dealing with a 1.90:1 aspect ratio screen, we're still dealing with 2k distribution in most cases and 4k in very few 'special' venues. How this movie could even deserve the IMAX logo stamped on it, is another example of how big business abuses customers. They built up a reputation of excellence and now they don't care because it's all about money. Reminds me of the THX syndrome. Back in the day THX meant timbre matched speakers, with special EQ's, with high power amp's and low THD. Today anyone can put a THX logo on their speaker systems, but nobody cares because the brand is dead thanks to the devaluation of their product. IMAX is going the same way, for every "new" digital IMAX theater, there are literally dozens who stop paying for IMAX equipment and turn back into regular theaters now that IMAX doesn't offer anything special. Standard run of the mill polarized 3D and nothing special 4k distribution. I have a feeling non science museum IMAX theaters will go the way of THX very soon, maybe within the next 5 years. Once theater owners realize the Dolby 4k laser system is much less money and the audience clearly doesn't care since they keep going, they'll not resign IMAX contracts. That's not to say IMAX's NEW 4k Laser projectors aren't awesome, because they truly are. No doubt the best looking digital projection device made. Yet, for 1.5M EACH, it's a tall order for theaters that aren't bringing in some serious bux.

Ya know, the question I didn't ask is how the shoot was structured. They may have been going to different facilities in order to save a buck or two, vs long-term rental. I do know the days in question were the only two days with any problem. Since I don't have any files online right now, I can't check the camera SN, to see if it matched the other ones. Also, I do know there were two cinematographers involved, the two days in question may have been pickups. I agree with you that rental houses usually reset cameras. However, this camera may have been borrowed from a friend. I don't think they would have rented one, I think it was a "package" deal, cinematographer comes with equipment. That's the way this particular director tends to work.