Tyler Purcell

VHS dailies? YUCK! Worst dailies I ever got was 3/4" SP, though most of the time it was Betacam SP and eventually DV. I can't imagine trying to judge things off a VHS tape. :(

Imagine that! :)

I agree Miguel, with the high price of crew and A list cast today, films are being shot at an escalated pace. It's more then typical to shoot 5 pages a day, even on medium sized movies. I personally feel, much over 2 pages a day is the cut off between getting it perfect (lighting, camera moves, performances, art design, etc) vs skimping in some way. When you get into the 3 - 5 pages per day area, you're absolutely going to be skimping on something. Just look at 'Bridge of Spies', there are MANY scenes in that movie which have lights just thrown in corners, some of which you could swear were in shot, but some CG guy put a book case in front of to block. Most of that is due to the limited time the crew had in certain locations, but if you look more closely at the BTS, you can see just how fast they were shooting it. Sometimes shooting 2 pages a day, other times shooting what appears to be way more. If you CAN slow the pace of production down, lets say spreading it over 45 days instead of 25 days, you'll be able to spend more time on the little nuances. Also, I always tell people the key is pre-production. If you can visit all the locations in advance, get an understanding for what you'd do at each of them, build a lighting rig on paper and have a large enough crew to implement it, then you SHOULD be in good shape. You've just gotta keep the company moves do a minimal and find locations with lots of shooting options. Filmmakers today apparently forget those critical elements, so they're doing multiple company moves a day, which substantially inhibits the crews ability to do things right. Sure, it's an awesome feeling to get a movie done in 22 days or less... (my last two were 18 days and 12 days YIKES) but if the net result is a poor product, what's the point? I'd rather have some breathing room, even if it means an unpaid day off for the cast and most of the crew, so the lighting guys can go in and pre-light so things are done right. I've done that before on a few shows and it works well, but it means you've gotta nail your location and be able to shoot a lot in the same place... which of course, comes down to the script. All in all, I do think the topic about "fast" shooting is a problem. I personally can't stand the way MOST movies are shot today, it's just uninspiring.

I spend most days editing material shot with them and coloring the end result. It's not really a feat at all... most of my friends can tell you what stop they used per shot and some of them, exactly what glass as well. I'm not THAT good. LOL

Yes, a "negative" would have negative polarity imagery. David is right about the orange look of an interpositive, it's just not quite as bright and of course would have a positive image.

Man, I had my eyes on that thing for the last year. Wayne wouldn't budge on the price, he was like $3500, not a dollar less. I kinda was frustrated because I wanted a smaller camera to work with then my Moviecam, but didn't have the money. :sigh: I guess I know who to call up if I need one! :) I didn't know it didn't have batteries, that's a real shame. They're kind of a bitch to find because I don't think you can use the XTR batteries. So there were just less of the flatter high capacity batteries around. The magazines do seem odd to load, but I guess that's par for the course. There is a great guy here in LA who is renting Arri ST/LT's for $100/day 3 perf and 4 perf. After talking with him for a while, I figured it was just cheaper to rent when I needed since I can't afford the glass anyway. :sad panda: Well, I'm glad it went to someone who will use it!

I've been doing it since I was a kid. I guess it's just having an eye for little nuances that trigger a memory.

Can't wait to mess around with it! :)

Orange would be negative. Depending on the vintage, original camera negative will have keycode numbers on the edge, as of I believe the 80's. If the film is older the 80's, you'll have to look for other identifying information. Yes original camera negative is the best to make a scan from. You will have to color correct and find sound of course.

Hey Frank, welcome to the forum! Per the rules here, we use first and last names as our identifiers. You will probably be hounded about that until you remedy it, so might as well give you the heads up. For photochemical finishing, everything is done with a negative to positive to negative to positive. So original camera negative would have an "interpositive" struck from it. That would be the 2nd generation and would have color/soundtrack applied. Generally an internegative is struck from the interpositive and that "IN" is used to make theatrical prints. Several "IN's" will be struck from the interpositive because one IN can only run off a few hundred prints. Theater prints can obviously be made from any IN, either early in the run or late in the run. Obviously the first prints struck from the first IN would be the best prints. You can also strike answer prints directly from the camera negative. This technique is done to check things like color and sound before striking a final IP. Smaller films use this technique to strike a hand-full of high-quality prints, right from the negative for festivals or limited runs. Unfortunately, there are really only two ways to "finish" your movie. One way is the process mentioned above, but it's only good for academy 4 perf camera original. The moment you wish to "save" film and shoot 2 perf or 3 perf, you need to do an optical reduction, which is expensive and adds one more layer to the whole process. With 2 and 3 perf, it's better to just scan the negative at 5k and laser it back to film. The funny thing is, that whole process is more costly then just shooting the movie on 4 perf to begin with! If your net result will be a photochemical finish with 35mm prints, you can't get better then shooting it 4 perf. Hope any of that was helpful.

Or maybe it's just the filmmakers using the old school cinematic method of making movies. Most digital cameras look ok under controlled lighting conditions. It's when you break away from those situations where different cameras start to feel more or less filmic. Put a 35mm camera on your shoulder and go out and shoot anything, it will look "filmic" no matter what. Do the same thing with a digital camera, things like motion blur and highlight clipping, really start to define digital cameras, especially at night. There have been a multitude of tests done with the Alexa directly against Super 35mm and the only time you can tell the difference between the two is with uncontrolled lighting, especially in dark situations. Film always holds up, where even the mighty Alexa has a very digital looking motion blur and the way it reacts to highlights is totally different. I'm rarely stumped when watching something, even at home on my 1080p DLP cinema projector. I can usually tell what digital camera it was shot with. I enjoy verifying my opinion on IMDB and it's rare that I'm off. Discerning film v digital isn't even in the cards, the difference is noticeable right away, then it's down to what stock and lenses they used. To me, that means even the best, most talent artists, still haven't been able to achieve the perfect, most "filmic" look with digital cameras. The argument is... why bother? We're in a new age, the age of digital and film is very much still alive. So if you want a filmic look, just shoot film! It's cheaper now then it's been for quite sometime, thanks to so many people shooting and so much re-can stock being available. New labs are popping up all over the place and pricing for lab work is slowly becoming competitive to the level where shooting on film isn't anywhere near as expensive. So when people ask me; "how do I get a filmic look", I point to a picture of a 16mm camera and say; "that's how".

I'm not sure about the format change, but I assume there will be. It's just, this time around it won't be as noticeable. So far they've shot WAY more 15/70 then 5/70. I have a feeling he will be using 15/70 for everything outside of intimate dialog scenes where audio is critical.

I've been shooting 10 year old Fuji stock that's coming out great. I mostly shoot old stock because I can't afford to shoot new stuff. I'll do a clip test of one roll since it was all together and see what it comes out like. I've found Kodak to have much better stability over the long term then Fuji. So if the Fuji stuff looks/works fine, I assume the Kodak will as well. Thanks for the info... it was just shocking to see the ol' 500T logo with no "vision" near the name and a 2012 production date.

Phil, IMAX 3D using it's double projector, active glasses system, is an entirely different concept to digital projection with passive glasses. Active 3D always has jitter/wiggle, doesn't matter what projection system you use, digital or film. The reason is simple... the brain has to deal with those shutters flickering right in front of your eye. Unlike the film projector shutter, which on IMAX is very fast, the glasses shutter physically blocks every other frame. So your brain has a hard time keeping pace with it all and the net result is a bit of stutter/jitter. The passive system requires more light, but since the brain isn't constantly having to process the shutters within the glasses, it's a "smoother" presentation. In fact, I'd beg to say for 3D applications, IMAX Laser is by far the best. IMAX 3D projectors have registration pins as well, so the film can't shake/wobble at all, it's physically impossible. I've seen 100's of 2D IMAX films and have never once seen one iota of jitter. In fact, the credits on 'Interstellar' were so rock solid, I had to turn around to see if they switched to a digital projector or not. Anyway, we aren't talking about 3D in this thread. That is a whole other can of worms that's really based on each individual. I personally hate 3D, it's turned movie theaters into theme park rides.

So I just got a hold of a bunch of 5230, thinking it was some pre-vision stock. Yet I some to learn it's actually between vision 2 and vision 3. So why did Kodak move away from the "vision" brand and make a straight 500T stock like this? Was it just old chemistry lying around they wanted to use or were there other reasons? I saw a few videos on the subject, but every says "it's an INDY film stock"... but so is Vision 3... umm so confused.

3 strip cinerama wasn't a very good format. The big problem's were lack of lens selection (everything had to be wide angle), a noisy/large camera that required a huge blimp, 3 rolls of film being inconsistent to one another and of course, the cost of shooting, processing, timing and releasing 3 prints for each movie. Remember, back then there were no platter systems, so film was projected using large reels on a rack next to the projector. Some of these big movies required intermissions to re-load and re-time all 3 of the projectors to continue the screening. What amazes me is how long the format stuck around and how many cinema's converted to use it. To me, it goes to show how much of a "gimmick" it was at the time. Trying desperately to drag people away from their black and white TV's and into the awe inspiring world of cinema. The replacement for Cinerama, or the "competitor" that became the replacement (Todd-AO, Super Panavision 70, MGM camera 65), was very good. 5 perf 70mm is no slouch and sure, it was less resolution then 3 x 6 perf 35mm, but the aspect ratio of Cinerama did stay the same at first. It was obviously cheaper then 3 strip AND more consistent when projecting. Plus, you could use longer lenses and make the movie LOOK like a regular movie. Which brings me back to the whole projection thing... now you could run A/B projectors and watch an entire movie without breaks. This saved the theaters a lot of time and "intermissions" started to become a thing of the past. It does kill me that IMAX swears up and down that digital laser projection does "fill the screen", which is absolutely a lie. I seriously hope they aren't ripping out 1.44:1 screens and putting in 1.90:1 screens at "classic" 15/70 IMAX venue's. That would not only be a big mistake, but would instantly kill the brand. I'm OK with a hand-full of 15/70 theaters, as long as every city has one and IMAX keeps printing movies. I'm not OK with the current direction which is BEYOND substandard compared to 15/70.

What? What? What? Umm, bad effects work generally comes from time/money constraints in post production and/or the effects people not know how to achieve what the director wants. It's true when you try to pull a key, higher bit depth and color space files are very important. However, if you can't pull a key, good artists can work around the problems. There are dozens of high-budget movies which use Go Pro's or similar 8 bit 4:2:0 cameras and pull keys from them. You don't even know they were used it's so seamless. Did he? I would beg to differ. Yes, his dreamed pushed production to a level, most filmmakers wouldn't go to. Yet, the end result was very much "un" technical. Due to Kubrick's concern about quality of theaters, ALL of his 35mm distributed movies outside of 'Eyes Wide Shut' were shot full frame and had mono audio tracks. In fact, his 35mm distributed movies were not available in "stereo" until the remastered 1999 DVD set. Kubrick also used standard run if the mill cameras; Mitchell's of various types and , Arri II, Arri BL and eventually the 535. Had Kubrick really been that technically savvy, he would have shot everything in 70mm to insure picture and audio were up to the best standards. He did so in 2001 and probably could have convinced Warner to do the same on his other movies. The problem is, Kubrick liked small hand held cameras and his experience working with the huge Panavision 70mm cameras, I believe turned him off. He did it once, but never used large format again, which is a real shame. So wait a second, you complained above about an 8 bit 4:2:0 image, yet you recommend cameras that shoot 8 bit 4:2:0? EEK!

I was sitting in a screening of Batman V Superman in 70mm and it was sold out. I was of course, looking behind me pre-show to see what the projectionist was doing and yapping to my roomie about it. The people next to me asked what I was yapping about.. I was like, ohh yea... this is a 4k scan out to 70mm film, very unusual presentation. They didn't even know what any of that meant, all they knew was the 70mm logo meant something special. Today, theaters are labeling film prints as being something special and a lot of those shows are instantly sold out. People don't know why, they just know it's not the same as whatever they're use to. This is part of the ebb and flow of technology. Only the pinnacle of the most recent XYZ or the old school ABC are interesting. Everything that's kinda in the middle, is kinda meh. People just want something different, no matter what it is. If all theaters were 35mm, they'd want digital. If all theaters were digital, they'd want 35mm. The problem is choice and a unique viewing experience. If you just give them the same thing every other theater has, it's not as cool.

What kills me about this whole discussion is that IMAX is lying to the public. Yes, IMAX Laser is undoubtedly brighter and more vibrant then 15/70 ever was. Then again, if they used a 70mm x 48.5mm imaging device and tried to deliver 12k like 15/70 does, they'd probably loose some of that brightness. So what they're giving the audience AND filmmakers, is a way to present their movies in a lower resolution format, so they won't see all the "issues" that arise with higher resolution formats like 15/70. It's really tricky to take a 2k or 4k source and blow it up to 15/70, it literally looks like crap, but magically on IMAX Laser it looks acceptable. I wonder why? Well, because IMAX is again, lying to the audiences. I actually know a few IMAX projectionists, guys who use to work for theaters that had laser projection installed. They gave away some of IMAX "secrets" when they lost their jobs. The big "secret" is that the only reason IMAX uses 2 projectors is to cover up for the pixel crispness. There was such a problem with the imager they use having black/dead space between each pixel, the 2nd projector is only there to overlay a "blurred" image of whatever the 1st projector is presenting. This is why you don't go into IMAX 3D theaters and get handed ACTIVE glasses, like the 15/70 3D movies. No, today with IMAX Laser, in fact ALL digital 3D formats are Polarized or Anaglyph which use ONE projector for 3D playback. Two projectors wouldn't make any difference at all, it's all just a gimmick. So the reason movies shot on 2k and 4k, projected on such a large screen look OK... is because they're "blurry". Heck, just watch the INTRO graphic to any IMAX laser projection presentation. It's the IMAX countdown on a white background with blue lettering. You can see the black lines of the imager, it's all over the place. Re-watch that same graphic on 15/70, it's just a solid image, no lines, no aliasing either, it's just solid as a rock. I know this because I've seen a few IMAX 15/70 movies in the last year and of course a bunch of IMAX Laser movies in different theaters. Then IMAX says, with two projectors they're getting MORE THEN 4k worth of resolution... what, what, what? If your source is 4k and your imager is 4k, you can't magically get MORE THEN 4k!?!?! A reminder; you can't magically make more resolution where it didn't exist in the first place. It's a lie and none of the big head honcho's of IMAX (all business men today ... the filmmakers all retired) will admit 15/70 is MORE THEN DOUBLE THE RESOLUTION OF THEIR FANCY NEW DIGITAL CRAP. The whole thing is a lie to make more money, get rid of the projectionists and the studio's get to make more profits. IMAX was suckered into that business model after failing miserably to deliver decent 15/70 content. All they had to do was develop a VistaVision style 35mm camera to save money on the vastly expensive 15/70 format for shooting. More people would have used it and more movies would have been shot that way. Instead, they stuck to the original 15/70 format which is too difficult to use for narrative most applications and when they floundered, they developed a 2k digital 3D camera and when that failed, they developed a digital 4k 3D camera and when that failed... wait a sec, that's today. The original crew were purists looking for the best technology solutions around and they had them, but there was a high cost. Today, IMAX is just a bunch of suits looking to put more money into their own damn pockets. None of the original crew are around and the geniuses who developed the early technology have retired or died off. They could care less about quality because if they DID, they would have developed an 8k system and been the first to come to market with one. But they didn't and they won't because they make plenty of money showing 4k images on a big screen, just like :cough: we've been doing for 100 years. If IMAX Laser was double 8K projectors with 100% 8k sources, on those smaller 16x9 screens... I'd have less to complain about. But they aren't... and they won't be anytime soon.

Here is what frustrates me... I go to the IMAX website and it's flooded with top hollywood movies. No mention what so ever of the "science/educational" films, some of which are still being shot on 15/70. I hit up my local "Science" IMAX theater's website and sure enough there is a movie called "National Parks Adventure 3D"... I watch the trailer, at the very end it says "Filmed with 15/70 IMAX 3D cameras"... Thus distinguishing itself from all the other 2k digital crap they've been doing recently. I might go see that tomorrow, just to get my 70mm fix for this month, as we still have a 15/70 theater not far from me. :)

100% agreed Richard. I grew up watching IMAX on a dome screen at my local Science Museum in Boston. It was one of the classic IMAX theaters, made in the mid 80's and of course, still runs 15/70 today. In fact, MOST of the science museums still run film because they own the equipment outright and until IMAX stops making prints, they will continue projecting them. I don't know of any non-science theaters that run 15/70. Some IMAX screens are just normal theaters with bigger screens and standard 2k digital projectors. It's a real atrocity and it's perpetuated thanks to the public not caring. Reminds me A LOT of what happened to THX. Originally a certification denoting timbre matching speakers and specific EQ electronics , now just a sticker any manufacturer can put on a device.

Yep, the way IMAX works today is they have 24/7 feedback to the headquarters, where they have people physically monitoring each show. It's the old "businessman" attitude. Lets pay 3 million dollars up front (for the digital projectors) so we can replace the labor. I've done the math and running an IMAX film projector costs around $30k - $50k month for parts and prints. Then you add projectionists who are in a union and charge around $1600 for a 12hr shift. You're looking at around a million dollars a year. With the laser projection, you don't need a projectionist and the laser sources don't go bad. So your up keep is basically reduced to nothing. Mind you, we went from 12k worth if resolution on 15/70 IMAX to 4k resolution on digital IMAX. But it's not about quality anymore, it's about how much money theaters can save, even though they charge more now then they've ever charged. The IMAX theaters near me are $20 or $22 depending on 2D or 3D. I personally can't wait for the lawsuit when IMAX tells all those people who invested in these fancy IMAX laser projectors, they're NOT upgradable to 8k. It may be the end of IMAX if they aren't careful.

I like history and the one piece of history I "like" the most is WWII. So I guess my phrase should have read 'I'm a fan of the time period and genera' maybe that would have read better.

FCP and DNX don't get along. You'd have to export to Pro Res for FCP to be happy.

I can't imagine 3:1 being possible, even on a film like 'Rope'. That means you're doing 3 takes of each single shot scene? No way... I just don't believe it. Actors make mistakes, the camera moves were very complex involving set pieces to be moved as well, I just can't imagine the ratio being anywhere near that low. It's fun to watch some of those classic Ford movies because you can see exactly what he's talking about. It's clever blocking and being very selective about inserts. His films do feel "cut in camera" which is a good thing and a bad thing. I do think in a perfect world, with a perfect script, excellent cast and everything rehearsed to the point of exhaustion, you can make a low-ratio movie. However, since movies have changed over the years, what comes of actors ad-libbing and being more relaxed in a scene, is well worth capturing. This is why the ratio has increased over the years. Catching great moments takes a lot more film because they don't happen magically on the first, second or even third take.