Tyler Purcell

Explain this process of "rack over" if you can. In my mind, I think of something mechanical which moves the lens between the viewfinder and film gate. I really want to borrow a Mitchell BNC to learn more about this non-reflex way of shooting. It would be a lot of fun to learn this and share it with my students.

Sure with regular glass, with stuff made specifically to fit motion picture cameras. However, with this glass, stuff that was never designed to work with motion picture cameras... I mean it astounds me they even got an image close to focus, let alone in focus most of the time. With a spinning mirror reflex and laser based focus tools, this becomes a bit easier. Back then, a tape measure may not have been good enough for something where the position of the lens was a 1/8th of a turn from working or not. Its quite remarkable and musta used A LOT of film to test. I gather they must have had same day dailies AND must have done a bunch of more scientific tests before figuring out how it was going to work.

Then how do you check focus?

Yea, Yea, Yea, but that camera was prior to understanding how to make a quiet pull down mechanism. The Mitchell guys were amazing engineers, but the amount of precision necessary to make a parallax viewfinder system even remotely close to what the camera was actually capturing, is nearly impossible. Even by todays technology, one would be hard pressed to make that work. Which I guess is my question... how did they make it work technically. Did they build a special parallax viewfinder which could focus the lens properly? The tolerances were quite amazing, for again... a company who couldn't figure out how to make their cameras quieter... which we take for granted today.

Yea I saw that interview, but I don't understand how the parallax viewfinder could be in any way shape or form, similar in focus to the film plane.

Good points David. There are so many tricks one needs to learn about making a consistent image through production. That's quite a big challenge on film, with digital and monitoring on set, it's a lot easier.

I guess anything is better then nothing. So riddle me this one. It was a non reflex camera at that point, so how did they check the composition and focus? by removing the lens, moving it over to a viewfinder and back again? I don't understand how the mathmetics of that work.

Yea that's what I thought, but didn't they make a special shutter with a higher shutter angle to let more light in?

I do think for science theater applications like IMAX, we will see an all 8k solution hitting the market very soon. IMAX has been struggling to replace their expensive 12k film format for years, but their digital solutions haven't been near the resolution necessary and they've been prohibitively expensive for most theaters. The first person to make a large imager 8k system that will go directly into IMAX theaters without modifications, that will be the first win for digital. 8k workflow is prohibitively expensive however, storage on set and in post is a huge concern. Visual effect rendering time is off the chart and the expense of decent equipment for shooting and presenting (which doesn't exist today to the level it needs to be) will be astronomical. I've said in many threads over the years, I think the quest for high resolution will stop at 8k. I think studios will continue to churn out movies at 2k for many more years. Then they'll eventually mandate 4k as a minimal resolution, which will put tremendous burden's on effects houses and post production. However, I don't see 8k hitting normal theaters in my lifetime, I just don't. The reason is quite simple; the film industry won't resort to highly compressed images for playback. They will always want to work in an RAW based HDR format, like they're experimenting with today. This equates to HUGE files and that won't change. If theaters aren't forced to upgrade, they simply won't and frankly 4k finish with 4k projection, looks pretty darn good even on a big IMAX screen. There will be studies made, there will be discussions had and in the end, I feel 4k will wind up being the "industry standard" for quite a ways down the road and we're still a few years away from 4k being a reality anyway. So what about 12k and greater resolutions? I just don't see them happening anytime soon. There will need to be a breakthrough in imager, display, computing and storage technology to make it worth while.

I have a design for a film optical printer which has the same amount of control as DaVinci. The problem is, who would want to develop it? Really, it has nothing to do with technology, it has everything to do with digital tools having instant results.

Man, I would absolutely bite, but the shipping would be crazy and I don't know what you're willing to take.

Motion picture film is cheaper to work with today, then it has been in decades. Film cameras are cheaper then digital cameras of like resolution. Kodak offers killer deals to low-budget movies. Lab's offer excellent processing/transfer/sync deals for post production. Modern printers are cleaner and faster, making the printing process even better then it's ever been. Lab's are also more accurate, leaving less room for huge errors seen in the not to distant past. The only reason people switched to digital as rapidly as they have, is simply because anyone who wishes to get work in the industry, must know the current equipment to get jobs. Heck, I will book jobs just to get some tactile interface time with equipment that I can't afford to own. I also book post production jobs for very low rates, if it's a codec/camera I haven't edited/colored with before, so I can learn what to do. I run into lots of cinematographers on a weekly basis and I always casually ask the question, if they had their druthers, what would they shoot on. The majority say film and some even are more specific with stocks, lenses, cameras and even post processing. Even though film technology has been almost completely stagnant over the last 6 - 8 years, people still want it. They still consider it the "gold" standard, for everything else is measured against it. Those people who tread into unseen territories with digital technology, have faced criticism and borderline failure. Film is the standard and digital for better or worse, is still a toy.

It costs around $500 a day to cut negative, so maybe $3k or so to cut a feature film with one person. The audio printing is around .80/ft The IP is around $1.25/ft So if your 90 minute feature is 10,000ft, you're looking at $8k for audio $12,500 for IP with audio attached $1800 for an answer print So you're looking at around $25k for all of the finishing on 35mm. That's not a lot of money in the grand scheme of things. Sure, if you've gotta do a lot of color work, you will need to make some answer prints during the color phase. However, if what you shot looks good and you can do a scene to scene color during the IP process, it's not so bad. You would normally then strike an IN off the IP, which is what you'd use to make theatrical prints. However, for festivals and stuff, you can strike prints right off the IP. You can get around 20 prints off an IP before you should stop. With 16mm, you'd have to do a blow up to 35mm, which is around $2.50/ft to create a 35mm IP off S16 WITH a color balance. So you're looking at another $5k - $8k or so. I like to strike print dailies for specific reels when shooting on film. Most of my 35mm commercial work, we printed select reels. All of my 16mm work is printed. On my 35mm budgets, I have $50k reserved for the 35mm finishing process, which there are several labs in the US that can do it. On S16 budgets, I budget for a 4k finish.

Honestly, I agree with Steve. A complete photochemical process, does look entirely different then a "flat" digital image. The problem today is that very few people are willing to risk not doing a digital intermediate. Plus, most movies shot on film aren't being scanned and presented in a resolution comparable to the original film format. If you watch "Interstellar" on 5/70 or 15/70, scanned at 12k, it looks like film. But if you watch "Rogue Nation", which was scanned and finished in 2k, it looks like crap. Hateful Eight, Interstellar and Batman V Superman, made more money per screen in 70mm then the digital screenings at the same venue's. If that's not proof people want to see something unusual, unique and they appreciate something made on film and distributed the old fashion way. I love digital technology, it's fast, it's efficient and it works great for low/no budget productions and products not going to theaters. I was one of the early adopters of the digital age, mostly because almost everything I shot was going to DVD or for broadcast. However, the theatrical experience SHOULD be special and a good photochemical finish is just that. It's something you can't see at home, like theatre, like a rock concert, more like a "live" event because it's always changing. In a perfect world, more movies would be printed to 70mm and use the Weinstein projectors and expand the use of theatrical 70mm releases.

Can't do 24fps dialog with lower frame rates, without dubbing. I doubt Kubrick would use lower frame rates to let more light in. He'd probably use a lower shutter angle.

What kind of work are you doing? What specs are you looking for?

Yea, I always turn the shutter angle down, usually to 45. Much below that and it becomes too staccato. If you run 1.2 stops of ND, 200 ASA and 45 degree shutter, you can usually get around f8 sure. But yes David, wholeheartedly agree the camera doesn't look as filmic in that situation. I've also been running a grad more recently on shoots where the sky is so overly bright, I can't control the highlights. So I protect them by using the grad and lift them in post production. So far that trick has worked well, but I haven't used it with actors yet. This way, you're not using as much ND (which is harder to correct), you're protecting those highlights AND you've got a cleaner, less noisy image to work with.

Well, when you're on location in direct sunlight and you're using 1.2 stops of ND, the lens is all the way closed and it's still peaking, you've got no other option. You can protect highlights if you're very careful, I've done it, it's not rocket science. But you can't be stuck running the camera all the way closed and have nowhere else to go, that's a worse scenario in my book.

Yea, I mean I know a lot of union editors and nobody gets even close to that. Most are making between 2500 - 5000 a week. It takes around 3 months to cut a feature, so if you do the math, you're looking at less then 100k, which is 1/10th of the rate given in that breakdown.

I'd love to be that nearly million dollar editor. I mean really? That's just insane!

One more thing... Tom's ideas about imagers not having a native ISO can't be proven with science because as David and others pointed out, cinematographers are trying to get a certain look out of the imager. That look can't be quantified by science, just like film vs digital. People like the look of film, but science says it's substandard compared to similar resolution digital. I have quite a bit of real-world experience with a variety of digital cinema cameras and this whole problem of native ISO being the best for protecting your highlights, has been accurate on every shoot, with every camera. I do work cameras at lower ISO's to help reduce noise because 800 on a lot of lower-end cameras, is noisy. Yet protecting highlights and getting a filmic image out of imagers which are being saturated with light more then their optimal level, can be challenging. This just another result of how science and math have difficulty merging with art.

Actually, they were going to shoot hybrid from day one. Alexa for the dark scenes and 65mm for everything else. They went testing and on the way back, their film got flashed by the airport. Evidently they lost something and it put a serious question into their heads. So they dumped the idea and went with the Alexa 65. What's frustrating is that there IS a bunch of 65mm film stuff that was fine and left on the cutting room floor.

See, I can tell right away. His trademark is to shoot the scene in camera pretty flat. He also uses MOTIVATED LIGHTING in almost every shot, which is one of the most critical points. The use of 32mm lens for almost everything. The balancing of the background, so it doesn't go too dark and there is still detail in the image. Plus, he favors physically putting the camera closer to the actors and not doing over the shoulder coverage, it's mostly singles. I've been following Deakins since I was a kid because his minimalist/realistic style works so well on motion picture film, it's something I've always wanted to mimic elements of on my own projects. I like realism, I like the cinematographer to be invisible. I don't want to see a scene that's suppose to take place in the 1800's with a 12k HMI as backlight or a huge amount of light blowing in all windows, all the time like so many other cinematographers do. It's unfortunate Deakins is so against motion picture film today, he's truly an anti-film guy. I don't think his digital movies do his technique any justice. There are great moments in them, but as a whole I feel they are more flat then his movies shot on motion picture film. One of the side effects of shooting flat like he does, is the fact you really need to do a digital intermediate in order to add some contrast, so Deakin's is a huge DI guy, which I'm not a big fan of either. It's funny because the only guy currently shooting I don't like is Kaminski. His lighting can be unmotivated and draw an audiences attention away from the action as a consequence. Amongst my friends, we call Kaminski the "lazy lighter" because when he's pushed due to time constraints, the solutions he and his gaffer come up with, appear to be the lazy way out. I look at key/pivotal scenes in even his more recent films like Bridge of Spies. The whole dinner scene with Hanks early on with his family, lit from a single overhead diffused box. Really? your dinner table looks like that? I don't think so. He uses the same stupid box in so many other shots, it's disturbing. It's so plain, unmotivated and ugly, it subtracts from what COULD have been a cool, very interestingly lit scene. I'm writing a pretty advantageous feature film right now that I can't make for years due to it's cost, but when I write interior scenes, especially intimate one's, I always design the lighting rig in my head as I write. I want to know where the source of motivated lighting is coming from. Is it a candelabra sitting on the table? Is it some light coming in from the window, which is augmented by reflected light back on the actors face? Is it moonlight splashing through a window frame and leaving a blue fill to the room? As a cinematographer by trade, turned writer/director, it's fun to examine these things during the writing phase, so when you're developing a scene you know what it's going to entail during production to make it right. That's how I decide if a given scene needs to be a set or can be modified practical location. It's also how I know how much it's going to cost as well, because that's an element a lot of writers don't think of. They simply write for the sake of writing and let the crew figure it out. But when you're making low-budget stuff, you kinda have to write within your budgetary means. I do like Richardson though.

Right, but again... big things are covered by insurance. Small things like a missing lens cap, filter, screw, etc... stuff that is clearly YOUR fault as an operator, just replace'em ya know? Someone lost the gate cover on my LTR. They were so nonchalant about it, pissed the living crap out of me. This is a one-off item, you can't go buy one. There were a total of 5 things wrong with my camera when I got it back and renter wiped his hands clean and walked away as if I had a box of spares already. If you bring me back something completely damaged, I'd be totally cool with it, that's what insurance is good at. If you're going to nickel and dime me with little things missing, I'm going to be super pissed off because insurance doesn't really cover missing stuff. It's very hard to prove something existed unless there is a line item associated with it and OLDER equipment, barely has serial numbers, let alone good accurate part numbers.

I believe they all share the same bit rate and 8 bit 4:2:0 recording. Magic Lantern does work on almost all of them, but there are restrictions, like only getting 720P out of it. In my eyes, the low bit rate is only 1/3rd of the problem. The 8 bit, 4:2:0 is the other and the final problem is the horrible old school codec. Even if you use an external HDMI recorder, most of the DSLR's have 8 bit outputs.