Tyler Purcell

Just for your education, there really isn't much of a difference between shooting with modern professional 16mm and 35mm cameras. It's true the 35mm cameras are heavier, but if you were to pickup an Aaton Penelope, it feels very much like the 16mm Xtera. They're both magazine driven cameras and are very easy to use. Honestly, loading 16 magazines is sometimes more complex then 35, as most of the modern ones have internal sprockets. I never found using 35mm cameras difficult, though having a camera cart helps. I've been the DP and operator on several shoots using 16 and 35, without any problem. Really the only reason you'd need help shooting 35 would be on a 4 perf show, where each 400ft mag is 5 minutes. That's a lot of loading, so having someone do that job is helpful. Also, what "accessories" do you need? It's all the same stuff you'd run with a digital camera. Dovetail, rails, matte box, follow focus, monitor, batteries, tripod/head, none of this is any different. People make shooting on film so complicated, but its really not. The only thing you need to shoot film is a good light meter, hopefully with a spot option and an understanding of what those numbers mean. You should have those things on a digital shoot ANYWAY. I taught my high school students how to load and operate the 35mm camera in 2 hours. They're pretty straight forward.

Well, there is a huge difference between the toy's being sold at best buy and an XDCAM camera. The role for a shoulder-mount, broadcast style(ENG) camera, isn't going away. Today, we see more and more companies converting their ENG cameras to CMOS and putting in the electronics to make them look more cinematic. The toys sold at best buy? They absolutely have a market. iPhones are great and all, but you aren't shooting hours of material with one at a single time. The value of those camcorders is their low-cost and long recording time. Plus, believe it or not, a lot of people don't have smart phones OR one's that shoot decent video. So I don't think they're going away anytime soon.

Dang! yea, of course. That's kind of a problem now isn't it! :( Magnetic lines up with picture frames and optical doesn't.

So you can do scene by scene color correction through your optical printer?

Here in the states, you can score an auricon optical 16mm sound recording camera for peanuts. I've personally always wanted to use one, I can't imagine how cool it would be to cut picture and sound at the same time! :)

Nagra IV-STC is the best unit, if you can find one. It's nice to have two channels and timecode.

The images pictured are knock-off chinese Sennheiser EW100's. Them pesky chinese guys, trying to copy good products so people might mistake them as being good. :(

It is today!

The silver that makes up film is non-uniform. Size and density, vary considerably from frame to frame. The larger the frame, the more pieces of silver, the more random the image is. Unlike digital, which has fixed pixels, film doesn't and as a consequence of this, scanning film at it's theoretically highest line of resolution (4.5k 4 perf 35mm and 2.5k S16mm), still doesn't give you all the data. There have been several filmmakers that have experimented with higher resolution scans of film and the results are amazing, there is far more data in the grain, then once thought. All this time we've been putting noise reduction on the grain because it's too noisy, thanks to the low resolution scans. However, if you scan and project at much higher resolutions like 8k, you don't NEED noise reduction because the image is all contained, there is little to no lost data. With digital, you have fixed resolutions. There are black lines between each pixel, data is actually missing between them. Same goes for digital projection, there are spaces between each pixel (mirror) of the imager. As a consequence when you blow it up to larger sizes, all you do is expand the black lines. This is such a problem with IMAX digital, they currently use two projectors in that system. One projector is crisp and the other is displaying a slightly softer image to help coverup those black lines. Next time you're at the theater, stand up during the show, walk up to the screen and you can see those lines. If you do that same test with film, there is no grid, no lines, it's just moving/roving grain. If you're making a real movie, with real high end cameras, real high end lenses, on set colorist/DIT and real post facility doing the coloring/finishing process. I've done the math many times, shooting 2 perf 35mm or S16 is actually cheaper in the long run, if you're doing it right. People are willing to give away camera packages and Kodak/labs are willing to strike amazing deals. I'm actually working on several film and digital shows right now. One of them is being shot scene by scene digital and film. Even though it's a short, it's a great comparison that I can't wait to share when we're done with it. The entire film aspect of the short will be $500 dollars. That's very true.

I wouldn't separate student films from any other type of filmmaking, I think it's a mistake. If you're going to make something, it shouldn't matter if you're a student or not. You have to take the project as if it's going to be just thing to work on. One of my friends shot his thesis film on 35mm, his parents paid for it. The story was about the controversy of the electric chair, which was an interesting subject. He built a nice set, paid for the cast and crew, even catering. It was methodically done and wound up being a pretty nice little project. Unfortunately, it didn't go anywhere and he never worked in the film industry after graduating, which is a real shame. I use this as an example because he had everything, interesting story, lots of money and 35mm! Yet nothing came of it. So the big question is, what are industry people judging your work on? Well... it would be a strong filmmakers vision, that's the key. You need to create a project that is powerful and insightful, with visual proficiency that shows anyone who watches that you're a real filmmaker. The hard part is, it needs to have some connection to reality. You can't just go completely left field, it has to reside in the zone of standard tropes, so people can associate. As a student, all you want to do is experiment and that's why you're at school. Experimentation is good, but you've gotta figure out clever ways to make your limited budget look good on screen. This is why so many people start by shooting on narrow-gauge film, because it hides poor art direction, poor makeup, bad lenses, etc. Plus, if you shoot on film, you will get recognition other students who shoot digitally, may not get. My advice though is to create something without much dialog, focus on visuals and create a story that's simple, modern (discusses a modern topic) and holds the audience attention. Easy to type, hard to do.

If you're doing a photochemical finish and you're very tight on shooting ratio, 4 perf winds up being less money then 3 perf, by a very small margin. 2 perf reduction printed and turned into anamorphic, is less expensive. With a digital workflow and scan back to film, 3 perf is the best way to go. From my understanding, you can't time the film during the IP/optical reduction process. If you COULD, then you WOULD save a considerable amount of money and time. However, I think you need to first time the film and make a 3 perf IP, then do a reduction print to 4 perf. That means you'd be 5th generation by theatrical, which is really bad.

Very exciting David! I think this is another case of something unique, well shot on film, getting some love it really deserves. I just hope the prints aren't trashed by the projectionists. :(

Kodak was for the first time in over 10 years, profitable once again in 2015. Film cameras are becoming cheaper and cheaper. For the first time, people can own real professional film equipment for digital camera prices. This in conjunction with Kodak's reduction in stock prices, have boosted indy film production to a level not seen in quite sometime. Just in the last few years, large format 70mm production has started back up again. Arri and Panavision are the only two vendors offering sync sound (quiet) 70mm cameras and those cameras are booked years in advance. Heck, there are over 90 theaters in this country currently outfitted with 70mm projection equipment! That's a larger number then we've had in decades. Even still photography on film has skyrocketed in the last few years. There are boutique labs popping up all over the place and the pricing is very competitive. So motion picture film production ain't going anywhere, in fact if anything it's getting stronger then it has been in the last decade. Kids these days are very excited about film production because it doesn't exist. Like the current vinyl craze, which has taken over most record stores, the "retro" aspect of film has grown substantially over the last few years. Many filmmakers are using film to get a certain look within their predominately digitally shot content. You can't mimic film perfectly with digital technology, film always as that "filmic" look that even with the best emulation, is still not quite there. One thing to note, the industry didn't move to digital JUST to save money. In fact, today's digital movies cost more then film movies of only a few years prior. The big reason films shoot digitally today is because digital easier to use, don't need as much light and you get instant, high quality results. This means, filmmakers know they have the shot, they can edit right away and deliver product with greater speed and reliability. Lets face it, film cameras can jam, they can get hairs in the gate and the labs could mess something up, it may take a day or two to see results depending on how far away you are from a lab, etc. So there are some downsides to film, but then again, film is for life! Once you expose negative, it will be there for 100+ years. It's also resolution agnostic, so if 20 years from now you want to scan your camera negative to get a 8k version, you can. Most movies are finished in 2k today, so imagine trying to upscale a finished 2k version to 8k for future release? In 20 years, there are going to be so many filmmakers looking back on that silly decision made so many years ago, scratching their heads why their movies look like crap. Yet the vast majority of 4 perf 35mm camera negatives retain more then 4k worth of information. Now... is it a mistake to shoot Super 8? Well... I wouldn't. In my eyes, super 8 is a consumer format. If you really want to work with film, it's probably better to start with 16mm and work your way up. More expensive for sure, but you will learn a lot more because most professional 16mm cameras have interchangeable lenses with external controls. It's the lensing and exposing of film that will give you the skills necessary for the future. I always suggest people start by buying Kodak Vision stock rolled onto still cartridges. Start shooting still's with your SLR and learn how to lens, expose and compose properly. Then buy a low-cost 16mm camera, maybe a BOLEX and start working on motion picture film. I teach film production to high school students and they absolutely love working with film. They love the technical aspects of it and how organic it looks. Many of those students have gone on to borrow my equipment and do their own productions outside of school. One of those productions just won a local film festival because frankly, it stood out amongst the other entries. This is why I think shooting on motion picture film is so important for low-budget shorts and features. Everyone has a DSLR that shoots video, everyone has a friend with a 4k digital camera, but very few people have access to good working film equipment. People take you more seriously when you shoot film, they know there is money rolling through the camera and that attitude runs through your entire production and distribution. When you walk up to a distributor and say it was shot on film, that means something.

I was told by the blokes over at Fotokem, they still have theirs.

Far as I know, there aren't ANY 3 perf projectors around. I'd bet there were only a few, 4 perf projectors modified and they're probably long gone. 3 perf came around right at the end of cutting on film, so there would be no reason to project 3 perf camera positive. Filmmakers would simply transfer the negative to video, cut on video, conform the negative and reduction print it to 4 perf. Adding sound to 2 or 3 perf is easy, Dolby Digital already resides between the sprockets. Adding a timecode track to the outside edge were SDDS is, would also be simple. My 2 perf and 3 perf table top projector idea would be specifically designed to run a modified format. However, it costs a lot of money to develop. I did see a very similar design recently that kinda threw me off a bit, even though it was 4 perf, the concept was very similar.

It just needs an optical reduction. Remember, 3 perf is s35 so the frame is wider. It needs optical reduction to fit into an academy frame. It's an expensive process unfortunately.

Processing black and white reversal film isn't very complicated. However, without adequate facilities, are a real pain to deal with. Processing color negative film at home is much more tricky, remjet removal and achieving proper/consistent temps, add to the complexity. This subject has been covered on this forum dozens of times. The net result is always it being a waste of time and money. Even with all the right equipment and perfect workflow, the results are substandard. Generally stuck remjet, and sections of unprocessed film, destroy consistency. Here is a link to a site all about it. http://www.oocities.org/gselinsky/ There are many more available by using Google to search.

Just did some research, seems the imax camera is just a rebadged arri 65.

I don't know of an Alexa IMAX camera. IMAX does have a digital camera, but I don't think it's anywhere near the quality of the Alexa 65. Nobody has bothered to make a camera anywhere near the pixel count of 15/70.

Well, Justin does have a good point. To come on here and say you don't "get" one of the industries best filmmakers, that's kinda like saying you've never heard the Beatles or Zeppelin. I mean it's ok... but you don't have to LOVE his movies to "get" them. I'm absolutely not in love with his work, but I do think he's quite an amazing Director. There are top Directors in this industry who would sell their soul to make a movie like Fincher does.

Seven is awesome, it's such a great detective movie. My favorite fincher movie, mostly due to the cinematography and phenomenal cast. Citizen Kane broke new ground at the time. Today, we all use the same techniques, BECAUSE of that movie. It's funny, my parents who are not film people, had never seen Citizen Kane until recently and we all saw it together and they loved it. So there are people who really like the movie. It's not one of my favorite films, but it absolutely is one of the best movies ever made. The devil's in the details, same goes for Fincher. Not saying Fincher is perfect, he's made his bobbles, but he's made some great movies and his work is top notch. If I had a great script and was not a director, Fincher would be a the top of my list.

Lucas is also a "fix it in post" sorta guy. Shooting his last few movies, almost exclusively on green screen stages. When you work that way, when you just can't wait to get into post, shooting digitally makes more sense. When you look at Episode II and III, there isn't some great in-camera cinematic vision. In fact, I'd say those prequel's were almost devoid of cinematic vision, compared to the films that came later. All the manipulating, still didn't help the meager story and weak characters. Rodriguez and Fincher are also "fix it in post" guys as well. Both, noodling with their films in post to a level other filmmakers would think "obsessive". Fincher clearly a master wanting to make his art perfect and Rodrgiuez, trying to save money. In my eyes there are two completely different filmmaking techniques. One that requires digital technology to move along fast and have instant results so visual effects artists can be working non-stop to create the on-screen vision during production. The other technique is to display what was shot in camera, on the screen. This requires more prep and a potentially longer production. So if you don't like production, if you like sitting in a chair at home to "make" your movie, this form of filmmaking just doesn't work.

Arriflex is the original name of the company. They removed the 'flex' from the name when they started making other products outside of cameras. So there are two modern camera systems. One is quiet for sync sound, one is louder, not for sync sound. The Arricam ST/LT are quiet for sync sound. The Arri 235/435 are louder, not for sync sound. The reason they do this is because the louder cameras, can be lighter weight and smaller since they don't need to have all the sound damping material. The 235 and 435 are also NOT that loud @ 24fps. I wouldn't shoot an entire feature with them, but if you needed to record sound with one, you could quiet them enough using a furniture pad. I had a 235 on my shoulder not long ago helping a friend with her short film and we just wrapped the body in a pad and it worked great. Not completely quiet, but it was fine for exteriors where there are so many other noises.

The reason why IMAX 70mm has been removed is due to running overhead. Just the monthly upkeep on those projectors is in the 10's of thousands, plus the specialized projectionist, plus the fancy film prints, etc... It's great that almost all of the science museum dome theaters are still film, but I assume those will be next. The science film industry is slightly different and they care more about quality then a standard movie theater.

The RED ONE was originally sold for $17,500. It was announced in 2006, but took them more then a year to ship the first generation. The prices didn't drop until 2009. The big problem with the RED cinema cameras initially was their target audience. They were selling cameras to rental houses and top professionals who were looking to make money off a new toy. The original RED workflow was a nightmare, they didn't get their act together until 2010. In contrast, the 5DMKII was released fall of 2008. It was $2799 retail, took standard DSLR glass (instead of the expensive PL of the RED) and most importantly, recorded to a then, more standard MPEG format vs special JPEG2000 of the RED. So where the 5DMKII was a YEAR behind the release of the RED ONE, it was so much less money, it played a pivotal role. At the time of the RED cinema release, there were already many options for that rental price bracket. There were zero options for the smaller guys, which make up 90% of the filmmakers out there. Everyone was still shooting on "video" cameras, some of them shooting HD for sure, but none of them with a real cinematic look. So one could say for the top professional filmmakers "experimenting" with digital technology, the F900/Viper type cameras were something to talk about. However, I think it was the smaller cameras and the lower-end filmmakers that made the difference.