Tyler Purcell

Aww dang! How about Murder By Death?

Right, but again, these tests are all exporting tests. I could care less about the speed it takes to encode an .h264 or Cineform video, both of which I rarely encode and have special tools to deal with. The only thing that makes any difference to me is when I'm editing. That's all I really care about because that's what the vast majority of people who own workstations for post production will be doing. They will be using a GUI to create using different software tools. Being able to playback 4k material in real time in DaVinci with multiple nodes of correction is critical. If you can't do that, your workstation is worthless because you can't see how things blend together. I just finished two 4k jobs, one shot with RED and one shot i-Frame MPEG. I colored both with DaVinci with multiple nodes, mattes, in full resolution. It always played back at real time with audio. With my old GPU (Radeon 5770 2GB video memory) it couldn't playback anything, you'd hit the spacebar and it would go to maybe 4fps. So anyone who says DaVinci is CPU only, again is only reading spec cards. The reality is, it's a VERY HEAVY GPU based system. Sure, on EXPORT it's CPU, but that's mainly because it can spread the load across multiple cores. On my system, playback barely makes the CPU's fluctuate, but export spikes them. Again, you only export when done and it can take weeks of work to finish a project, so how long it takes for that project to export is almost completely irrelevant. What matters is how the software works the rest of the week. Now I edit in Avid, I've not made the leap to Premiere because it requires a newer operating system and I refuse to go there right now. Avid doesn't have ANY GPU support according to their documentation, but again, the addition of the GTX680 was night and day. Avid all of a sudden plays back more layers of video in real time without stuttering, it also allows me to run more composite effects without stopping. It actually performs like an all-new machine, which is pretty incredible since it's NOT a crazy new fancy graphics card and my machine is 8 years old! I also don't work in consumer formats, I work with RED, Pro Res, Cinema DNG and i-Frame MPEG most of the time. Long GOP MPEG (.h264) and Cineform are the two last things I would ever want or need to touch. I transcode those codec's to Pro Res before editing with them.

David, you're 100% correct and I wholeheartedly agree that it's a non-starter. However, my projector would be backwards compatible with 4 perf AND I wouldn't sell anything to anyone. I'd just have lease/rental deals and they would be super inexpensive. Honestly, I'd much rather make a 2 perf camera anyway. I think there is a much bigger market for one.

DO I dare say Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai across the 8th dimension? I love that movie! :)

If the pulldown claw was getting stuck somehow because the lubrication was bad, yes it could be the claw. I've seen the claw not go out and hit the perf all the way.

Yea here in California, 35mm projection was really good until the day it died. However, in other places it was bad. Today, I haven't seen a decent 35mm screening (outside of special events where someone cares) in years. I have seen decent 70mm though and a lot of it, which is pretty nice. IMAX does have de-static rollers, it also blows air at each frame to help keep it clean. Plus, they've developed technology from the ground up, rather then 30's technology that's been slightly modified over the years. 35mm projection hasn't changed much since sound on film. We still use the same frame size, same intermediate sprocket for pull down, same gate design, same shutter design, heck even the lensing is similar. Really the only updates made to 4 perf 35mm projection have been anamorphic, digital audio and platter systems. IMAX was a new system in 1970, it was developed from the ground up to be excellent and it is the best system.

AJA Cion is the worst disaster to come from anyone in recent years. It has a severe dynamic range issue, which makes it almost impossible to shoot decent looking images with. Plus it won't deliver LOG footage like most of the other cameras, so you can't correct issues when they occur. Sure it has Pro Res XQ which is great, but the electronics suck. I hope their next iteration is good because the concept and pricing isn't bad, but it's otherwise a failure.

They also have a new imager which rotates the mirrors much less then previous generations. The rotation has more steps then previous generations as well, which means it's far easier to achieve deeper blacks and brighter whites thanks to a better imager system. I personally think the whole thing is Trojan horse. It's a way to get theater owners to one up one another, rather then deliver a better image. IMAX laser projection for instance, is a double system right? But the 2nd projector only projects a blurry image on top of the 1st projector. This helps remove the black lines between the mirrors (pixels) which is so evident on digital projection. I just find it funny that to make digital look pleasing, they have to blur the image! What a joke!

The spec sheets are actually wrong. I've talked with the folks at Adobe and Blackmagic personally because I setup systems which are used professionally in the industry on a regular basis. So I need to know how to do that and what cards to use. I've had consultants for both manufacturers sit in on meetings to confirm my specifications before installing. These manufacturers never even consider Open CL as an option, it's not even on their radar. Software manufacturers have spent considerable amount of money developing code that specifically works with the CUDA cards. When you use open CL cards, you are NOT getting the use of that code. Anyway, I've personally tested Radeon (AMD) Open GL cards vs nVidia CUDA cards of similar speeds. So instead of telling people what you use works... why don't you do the testing yourself? I've done it. I downloaded samples from the internet of Red Code, Arri Raw, Cinema DNG, Pro Res XQ, i-Frame MPEG and .h264 and have manipulated all the codec's in DaVinci using different resolutions and the consensus was night and day.

Some of your information is incorrect. The Mercury Engine is CUDA ONLY, it doesn't exist on Open CL. So if you don't have a CUDA card, you aren't running real-time effects with your GPU. DaVinci has no support for OPEN CL. The only real-time GPU hardware rendering support it has is with CUDA cards. Same goes for all of the JPEG2000 (RED CODE) conversion software like Red Cine X. I do agree that video memory is a problem and 4GB (which is what most cards have stock) seems not to be enough. However, I've installed a lot of graphics cards (not AMD) in multiple systems, CUDA and Open CL. My results have been the CUDA machines always running a tiny bit faster. Whether it's multi-track real-time rendering, whether it's scaling or even simple effect application, the CUDA cards always perform better. I recently did a huge install of Open CL cards into some clients computers and I was unimpressed with the results. We wound up selling the cards and installing older CUDA cards and the results were night and day. This is something I've been struggling with for awhile since Apple is so Open CL based, CUDA is a very 3rd party thing. Anyway, CUDA in my opinion is worth the money, even if you only have 6GB of memory.

Well, so far I don't know of any content actually made specifically using the Dolby HDR system. I've seen movies in Dolby theaters and the moment the little HDR demo is done, the black levels go up and the movie looks normal. It's the same with IMAX Laser projection, they promote it as having greater dynamic range, but I haven't seen it. Honestly, the only reason you need high dynamic range is in camera, which gives you more options for correction in post. IF you had an HDR camera, you couldn't distribute in HDR because in the coloring process, you'd be limiting the dynamics of the image, that's kinda the whole point. You bring up the blacks and lower the highlights so you can see details.

Everything I read says September at the latest.

Just an FYI, After Effects and Premiere use CUDA for almost all of their real-time rendering. Since nVidia are the only chip's that support CUDA, it's smart to use CUDA for over-all performance. Even DaVinci prefers CUDA support over Open CL. http://create.pro/blog/open-cl-vs-cuda-amd-vs-nvidia-better-application-support-gpgpugpu-acceleration-real-world-face/

Actually, most projectionists do de-focus digital projectors purposely. However, even with the de-focus you can still see the problems.

Yea, the video you posted is most likely a problem with the lower loop. Since what you see is reversed in the camera, it can't be the upper loop. Perhaps the film is being yanked by the sprocket which pulls on the spring loaded backplate and that's causing the problem. To me, that would be the first place I'd look. First thing to do is take a junk roll of film and thread it through the camera to see if there are any obvious issues. My guess is, the loop is failing on start/stop for some reason. So you thread it right, you test it and then when you put the cover back on it, the loop fails. That generally is caused by the pulldown claw not activating the film during start and stop. So the film is being yanked by the sprocket, the loop is lost and eventually the camera will jam.

Well, it sounds like either the loops are too small OR the film is skipping on pulldown. This is generally caused by a backplate issue. That camera is very simple and I can't imagine the pulldown claw itself being a problem as it's directly connected to a spindle which is very hard to damage. The pressure plate spring could snap though and have not enough pressure for the film to stay even when being exposed. I'd love to see a sample, generally these are pretty easy to diagnose.

Well TV stations don't produce much if any content anymore. Commercials are made by ad agencies, who generally hire production companies to produce content. The vast majority of commercial directors are brought in based on their previous work. So breaking into commercials can be very tricky, especially if you don't have a lengthy resume. I've shot many commercials over the years, mostly on film. I got lucky, the production company I worked for, did a lot of commercial work and when they needed B-Roll stuff, where they didn't want to pay for a cinematographer, they'd let me shoot it. That eventually turned into me being the "cheaper" alternative and the next thing I knew, I was shooting commercials. Most of the stuff I did was either talking heads or products, but hey whatever it's work. I was also was going to school at the time, so it was a part time gig. Today, the commercial industry is very competitive, more so then back in the 90's when I was doing it. Honestly, the key would be to make friends with an agency and do some spec work to prove you can do good work. It's easy to fake commercials and have a reel that looks good. Then all you gotta do is befriend an ad agency friend and if you can underbid substantially, then you're in good shape.

They do care. The 70mm screenings of Interstellar, Hateful Eight and Batman V Superman, made a considerable dent for limited theaters. People want to see something different/unusual and that's why film WILL make a comeback, even if it's limited. Well most theaters in the US are still 2k. Most content is being distributed in 2k. Most theaters no longer have projectionists either. The pixel issue with digital projection is so big, projectionists have learned to de-focus the image to help. If that's the solution, we're in big trouble. Well... most of the problems started way before then however. Most real projectionists say the move from double projectors to platter systems was the first nail in the coffin. The platter systems have a tendency to scratch film and when you assemble reels, the splices can be a problem as well. There is also far more tendency for dirt to get on the film when it's running through the air across a room and into the projector. The vast majority of theaters, don't have de-static wheels before and after the projector to help fight dirt pickup. So things were already falling apart in the 90's, but your right, it really started getting bad right before the switch to digital. Mostly because people saw the writing on the wall and there were less people running them, thanks to the union fee's. The numbers I've heard are projectionists rates are around $1000/day for an 8hr shift. Theaters just can't afford that. I disagree... anamorphic lenses have been around since the 60's and they work great. It's a HUGE benefit for 35mm. The Hateful Eight problem was related to poor manufacturing and only half of the lenses suffered problems. They just weren't tested enough and likewise, there were issues. Good 4 perf anamorphic is far better then 2 perf spherical. IDK, the Sergio Leone films look pretty good.

Well the idea is to change the paradigm. The current system isn't working. Prints look worse today then they have in the past because the projection equipment is antiquated. If you build a new style of projection that removes things like the platter brain which is one of the leading causes of film scratches, you've made a huge difference. If you remove the projectionist splicing multiple reels together, you also reduce the amount of scratches. These are things that need to happen if projection is to be saved. Otherwise, film projection will die, not due to lack of quality, but simply because nobody cares. If something isn't done soon, it will be too late before things are changed. The idea would be to make a fleet of projectors and rent/lease them to theaters and filmmakers for peanuts.

Here is a good start, it's from 2014, but it's got almost all the high end cameras on it. http://www.cineverse.net/images/2014_Camera_Comparison_Chart_v10.pdf

Huh, I've not seen one of those, do you have a pix?

That's the assumption everyone has, but nobody has come up with a solution. Most internet today isn't fast enough and we currently produce more content then we can afford to store. Most of the people I know, produce well over 128gb a month worth of stills alone. Just uploading/managing all of that content is a job most people won't do. Plus, there is no "free" service to upload that much data. Everything costs money and the moment you stop paying, you could loose all that data. Plus, there is no instant access to any of it since it requires internet. So most people walk around with 1000 or so pictures on their phone that's not backed up which cover years worth of their life and that's it. Then their mobile device fails or is lost and they loose everything. So it's not JUST about the lack of long-term hands off storage, but it's also about data loss with digital devices. I've actually lost more content thanks to digital technology then I've ever lost during the film days. Probably because I take MORE pictures, shoot MORE video and have more content, so the ratio of material shot vs saved is the same. Well, magnetic tape stored properly isn't too bad, it can last quite a while. The problem is that most people don't store properly and the back coating of the tape fails. With audio tapes, you can bake them and still get data off, but with video tapes, generally they are too damaged. I use to build archiving solutions for magnetic tape, so I have quite a bit of experience dealing with bad tapes. I've threaded up 2" video tapes from the 60's that were stored correctly and they've worked fine. Yet 3/4" tapes from the 80's that weren't stored properly, clog heads so badly, they're impossible to playback even if you bake them. I actually designed a machine that kept the heads from clogging, but the company I did the work for, didn't see any potential. I was shocked and dismayed because my success rate was much higher, but still not enough. Tapes that clogged heads, would be thrown away in most cases, which is too bad. With audio, we had a 24 bit 192khz multi-channel encoder. For video, we had a very fancy 10 bit 4:2:2 Pro Res encoder that worked great. Our system was robotic and it drove the tape machine automatically. The files were then automatically stored on to A/B LTO6 tape AND a Proxy version was stored onto a hard drive. We'd hand back the client a hard drive and the LTO Tapes. It was a great system as LTO's last around 50 years sitting on a shelf, which is pretty good. Yet, the same problem exists, whose gonna playback an LTO6 tape in 50 years? I mean, it's going to be such an obsolete format, totally worthless in the grand scheme of things. Good Vinyl, good tube pre-amp's and solid state transistor based amp's are really good. Really well mastered CD's and high-end D/A converters sound good as well. Computer audio, generally sounds like crap, mostly because the clock of the computer and the clock of the D/A converter's, don't match. So it's very hard to get your computer to spit out higher quality audio then a really good playback device. I've done 100's of tests with a myriad of different devices over the years and being an audiophile, I can tell you computers never sound that good without specialized hardware. Same goes for computer displays... I mean most of them are 8 bit!

Wish I had the money to develop it. I really want to figure out of I can use a rolling loop design vertically. In my mind, that would be the ultimate design, with a high-power LED lamp in the middle of the rotary projector that doesn't require any crazy ventilation. The shutter would be rotary based and it COULD run 2, 3, 4 perf film. I'm just not sure if you can do what I want to do because it requires vacuum and unlike 15/70, 2 and 3 perf is such a smaller physical image, I don't know if it would work. Personally, I'm not really interested in developing/designing something that uses the same ol' movement, just modified. I'm only interested in doing something totally different, super small, lightweight and quiet. The guy who will help me design this beast, just got a huge mill, so all I need is a rapid prototyping machine.

The funny part is, we as a culture create more content today then ever before in our history. Yet, the digital age has one huge consequence, in 50 years, where will all that media be? Forget about movies and television, lets focus on still images and audio. A recent research paper said our future will be the least documented in the previous 50 years. Digital storage solutions don't mean anything because we are analog beings. So even if there was a breakthrough in storage, hold petabytes in a 1x1" cube, the devices necessary to playback that media will be the determining factor. Plus, imagine storing an entire lifetime of media in such a small device. Where would it be stored? When people pass away and their house is cleaned up, where will that content be? How will the family members get that data and view/save it for later use? We still have some of the first images ever made on paper and glass, they still exist over 150 years later. Will OUR life be viable by whatever creatures inhabit the world 150 years from now?

But they aren't in practice.