Tyler Purcell

Film projection hit it's peak in the late 90's. I remember seeing some amazing film projection in my youth and when I moved to california, the projection here has been stellar as well. Unfortunately, we've been digital here for quite sometime, around 10 years or so. Theaters had a little logo "digital" for those particular presentations and they ran film for all the other one's. So I'd always go to the film presentations. Here in the states, 35mm film prints died because the person who owned BOTH the big labs, was looking at the numbers and saw that film wasn't making him much profit, so he decided to close the doors on all of it. In fact, only 17% of Deluxe's business was film prints. Technicolor was the other big film printing company and they stopped because they didn't want to renew the lease on their property. So they pulled the plug and the printing equipment was destroyed, ripped apart by machines and thrown into dumpsters. So 35mm projection in the US died in December 2013 when those labs went belly up. That was pretty much the last time I saw a standard released 35mm film as well. Without those high speed duplicating machines, there is no way of doing a mass release of 35mm prints anymore. The financial burden of striking thousands of prints, now rests on the theaters, who have to spend millions updating/servicing digital projectors. This is why movies cost more then they ever have and why cinema as a whole is dying.

So do you really need a film school? Some say YES because you will make great connections for the future. Unless you're a partier and want to socialize all the time, that doesn't work well. So I say film school is pretty worthless in today's age. This is mainly because everyone can make films these days with low-end cameras and very few schools have professional equipment like they did in the past. I suggest to ALL people wanting to get into the film industry, to get a degree in a backup topic and get work in that topic so you can build a backup resume. Then once you have enough money, buy a camera and start shooting. Don't EVER get into any debt, no house, no fancy car, no family... if you want to do this right, you've gotta be lean and mean. Save every penny you can, live in a poop apartment, take the train if you have to. When you have enough saved, make a good backup plan and give yourself a year to make it happen. You won't make a dime that first year... and you'll be spending more then you ever have because it will cost you in travel. However, once you've done your year, you'll know if it's something you want to pursue. Here is the difference between music and filmmaking... with music, people WANT to share their secrets, with filmmaking, nobody wants to share what they do. You can take all the courses you want, from the best people in the world, but you won't be better off then experimenting on your own. Nobody on a film set OR anyone in the "hiring" of crew, gives two shits about any degree's. Your resume would only be the shows you worked on in the past and your job capacity. I've never seen a professional crew member's resume even so much as mention degree's. If you wish to be a cinematographer someday, the path is VERY simple. You need to get work on smaller productions in the lighting department or camera department and slowly work up the ladder. It really requires time on set, learning the terminology AND working with a master cinematographer. Plus, lots of experimental time for yourself to build a decent reel of your work. I always suggest young cinematographers invest in a cheap camera/lenses and never stop shooting. You've gotta be willing to work for nothing and build that demo reel, in between your bigger paid gigs. The problem is getting your first gig and there isn't a simple answer to doing that. It's a catch 22... you've gotta have a resume to build a resume, if that makes any sense. The other way to get in, is to know someone. This is why so many people start as production assistants. They work their asses off and meet people along the way. Those people are just like you, they're working on other gigs all the time. Meet the right person, have the right conversation and you may be on their team for the next shoot. This industry is cutthroat though and it's very much based on social interactions, so if you're not prepared to be hanging out with strangers all the time after hours in order to move up the ladder, you'll probably not go anywhere. You've also gotta be willing to push people out of the way in order to secure gigs. You will never be handed an opportunity, you have to MAKE the opportunity yourself through demonstrating your hard work AND pushing to make it happen. This is why most of the top working crew people are mostly extroverts of one kind or another. Sure, creative jobs like Cinematography, Art Design, Costumes, Makeup, those people maybe a bit more introverted. But the vast majority of people you'll meet along your trip are extroverts to the max. I went to film school. I have a lot of talent. I work very hard, but not hard enough evidently because having lived in LA for 13 years, I haven't yet been able to achieve any "success". I've survived with my backup career all this time and it's a shame. I have a lot to give, everyone I've worked with has called me a super talent and wonders why I'm not a millionaire, but it's about who you know. I don't know any millionaire's. LOL :) Hope that helps! Don't get depressed, just make it happen! :)

It really depends on what kind of camera you have access to. Most of the lower-end digital cameras have white clipping issues, which makes them look very non-filmic. So no matter what you do, making it look like film can be a real challenge. Once you increase the dynamic range of a digital capture device and push that increased dynamic range through the post process, ALA RAW capture and full bandwidth finishing, you can simply add a film look LUT AND film grain to your source and it will look pretty good. Will it look like old film? Well... if you sample film grain from an old film and comp it in, you'd be surprised by the results. I shot a short film 6 years ago on an 8 bit 4:2:0 HDV camcorder. It looked so horrible, I shelved it. Last year I was messing around with film grain and film LUT's, I was able to bring it back to life with a lot of post work. It's not amazing or anything, but it has a filmic look...

Super 16 has made a HUGE comeback. Mostly because camera prices have dropped substantially and people like myself can pickup complete packages for a few grand and shoot. This is the first time in the history of 16mm where professional cameras are SO affordable, only because people are so taken by digital technology. I've always said, if you remove film from the equation, there will be an eventual backlash and I think we're seeing that right now. More and more younger filmmakers are shooting on film exclusively and there is a movement to force theaters to project on film. Once there is some infrastructure built back up again, I can see more and more 35mm screenings as well, it's just right now, the popcorn operator struggles to run a film projector. So some theaters will need outside assistance. It will take a popular movie to be released only in 35mm, for things to change. I have a feeling Nolan's new movie maybe just that film as he's hinted about making 5/70, 15/70, and 4/35 prints ONLY. We'll see if Warner Brothers is OK with THAT decision.

From what I've heard, they are doing subtitles digitally and ALL of the 70mm screenings are subbed, not dubbed. Quentin has set the stage for others to follow suit. Batman V Superman will be distributed in 70mm as well and rumors are that a few more big tent pole films will also be distributed in 70 this year as well. As long as the equipment is being used, as long as projectionists are busy showing films, we'll be in good shape. I'll say this much, Panavision and Arri have long-term rentals on their 70mm cameras right now and Fotokem is more busy with 70mm then they have been in quite sometime. So there are MULTIPLE shoots working in large format, from Nolan's "Dunkirk" to PT Anderson's next film which is shrouded in secrecy. 70mm is clearly making a comeback.

Yea, daylight spools don't work good in the SR.

Maybe the film shifted on the core? Even if it's off a tiny bit, it will make rubbing noise. No, it's not "suppose" to make any noise, but they tend to no matter what you do. I have the same problems with the Aaton's sometimes as well.

Isn't suppose to throw a red light when out of sync? I just serviced an SRI yesterday that made identical noise with no film in the magazine. It's just the plastic drive gears for the magazine.

Yea, well that's a good sign for sure. There maybe a noise maker in the electronics for some reason. But I would agree that the electronics are probably the issue. If you pull it off, I'm pretty sure there is a connector you can unplug and see if the camera will still run and if the noise goes away.

Is the speed module removable, or is it built into the camera? Can you shoot a video of what the noise sounds like, especially in relationship to the frame rate, so we can hear if the noise changes with the speed of the camera? The bottom camera is Super 16 for sure. Though both cameras look neglected, with the wrong screws in the image... which is very strange, a mix of phillips and straight edge? Yuck!

Hey Christian, The Hateful Eight was screened in 70mm all over Europe and it coming to Barcelona soon: http://in70mm.com/now_showing/index.htm...time to get a plane ticket! :) The film can't be presented without the anamorphic lenses, so they are shipped with the film. Most theaters in the states did nothing to the top and bottom screen matte. The difference between 2.40:1 and 2.75:1 isn't that huge, there would simply be bar top and bottom of the screen. From my understanding, no machines were shipped to Europe. There are quite a few "art houses" in Europe, so the projection equipment does exist. The European premiere was at a theater in France, they had to build a projection booth IN THE THEATER to house the equipment. So in that case, there was a team from America involved.

Ahh, aerial sounds right because he wasn't involved with that unit.

What bothers me about experiences like this, is that running a projector isn't rocket science. Plus, the theater has been "operational" for quite sometime, they could have done a few tests before committing to a theatrical running. Last film I watched on double projectors was a beautiful restored 70mm print of "Its a Mad Mad World" that really looked like it was new movie, quite astounding. Anyway, they did change overs and about 3 reels in, they didn't start the next projector on time and the film rolled out between reels. Small glitch, kinda laughed about it, but inevitable when you run restored content, a lot of it doesn't have cue tracks. In fact, the 70mm projectors at that particular theater, didn't have bells either. So outside of the cigarette burns, they had no idea when to start the next reel. Whoops! So yea, it happens... and as film becomes more and more of an 'art' form, issues like this will probably get worse and worse unfortunately.

According to a friend who worked on the film in the camera department, the vast majority of the movie is shot on 35mm. I didn't ask him about the Alexa, but the 16mm stuff is for a particular scene and the 65mm stuff is also only for a few particular scenes.

Complete list of screenings: http://in70mm.com/library/blow_up/year/2016/index.htm Looks like it's a 4k finish.

IDK about that... I started shooting super 8 in the mid 80's and my last cartridge was shot in 1992. That was about the end of the drug store cartridge acquisition here in the US. Towards the end, I remember going to a wholesale camera store and seeing a 50 gallon barrel full of Kodachrome with sound stripe. I bought as may cartridges as I could with the cash on me and that lasted me for quite a while. When I went looking for more, it was impossible to find outside of speciality stores who wanted A LOT more money. Plus, my camera was beat and had a serious light leak, so instead of investing in another one, which at the time were very expensive, I switched to video. The reason "film" is making a slow comeback is because our youth are interested in what doesn't exist today. They want to learn about our past and some of them want to embrace it even more so then my generation. What Kodak plans to do for the price point they plan on doing it, is pretty cool. Whether it works, is a whole other issue. I personally would have hired a camera manufacturer to make a camera, not some bloke in his garage, but that's just me.

I can't imagine it being a problem with the film. I like the idea of it being exposed to xray. If it were a camera problem or issue with the film itself, you would see a more consistent problem. The "pulsing" leads me to believe it was hit with radiation from ONE SIDE of the film reel, which is why the other side of the reel was OK. Why one of the rolls survived is because it was being blocked by the other rolls and simply didn't get hit with AS MUCH radiation. SO yea, I'm hedging my bets on xray.

Well, a K-3 isn't a crystal camera either, so you aren't recording sound no matter what since it's speed regulation isn't close to that of the Bolex, never less standard electric motor cameras. The K-3 is unfortunately cheap for a reason. I recently used a re-built one and was very unimpressed. :(

The 2D version of Force Awakens was 2k, as the DCP files for 2D were verified as being 2k by several projectionists. The 3D version of Force Awakens was finished entirely different and it was 4k. My guess is they double-streamed the 2k material for a "faux" 4k.

Hey Christian, Yea, I've done quite a bit of "loud camera" shooting. Back in the day, I worked on commercial shoots using an Arri III, which is not a quiet camera. I've also used Arri S/M cameras on several shoots, plus still run my Bolex all the time. The trick to sound recording using those cameras is to pretend you're recording normal audio. I always use wireless lav mic's and a recorder on set. I even sometimes cloak a jacket/coat or furniture pad over the camera in scenes where the camera noise maybe just a bit too much, like during close-up's. Then in post production, its much easier to do ADR because you recorded good sound on location. It also gives the editor something to work with as well, which helps greatly.

There are three major motion picture formats; Super 8, Super 16 and Super 35. I personally discount Super 8 because it's lacking much of the components necessary for it to be professional. We've argued it and I don't want to argue any more, it's nowhere near the caliber of Super 16 and as proven time and time again, doesn't save money in the long run. Super 35mm is a great format, especially 2 perf. However, the vast majority of affordable camera bodies are 4 perf, which is 1.33:1 aspect ratio and 400ft lasts 4 minutes vs 11 minutes on S16. Plus 35mm glass is extremely expensive because they cover the digital imagers, so people with digital cinema cameras buy older glass to save money, but that keeps the price high. Since there is only ONE modern 2 perf camera made; Aaton Penelope, it's nearly impossible to find one used and at a reasonable price. Price vs performance 2 perf 35mm is outstanding, beating S16mm for sure, but it's just hard to find the cameras and buy the appropriate lenses. 35mm unfortunately is still a format more suitable for rental. Finally, we're left with 16mm. Most of the narrow-gauge 16mm cameras on the market are what's known as straight 16 which is 1.33:1 or "square" aspect ratio. In the mid 80's super 16 came around, but camera companies were slow to adapt because at the time, 16 was mostly used for news gathering, sports and documentaries. Eventually the remaining camera manufacturers made super 16 (1.67:1) cameras and today you can find them all over for sale. Ultra 16 was started around the same time and uses the space between the sprocket holes to continue the frame and is 1.85:1 aspect ratio without cropping quite as much. However, there were never any professional 16mm cameras made from the factory in Ultra 16, only modified ones. In my opinion S16 is the way to go. It's the most affordable system for the quality in the world of motion picture. Obviously if you're renting, 2 perf 35mm is better for not much less cost if all you're doing is shooting, but if you wish to own, S16 is the way to go. If you wish to watch a few S16 film's that show the diversity of the format, pickup "Hurt Locker", "Beasts of the Southern Wild", "The Wrestler" and "Carol". I like those films because those filmmakers weren't trying to get an old school grainy look like "Moonrise Kingdom", they were trying to get the most out of the format due to low cost and keep it as clean as possible, even though I think "Moonrise" looked amazing, they shot with high-grain stock to get that look. People will argue with me all day long about this next statement, but I'm going to say it again like I do every time, there are TWO cameras; Aaton XTR Prod and Arri SR3. These are the best camera bodies for the current used prices, nothing gets near them quality vs price. Both cameras are widely supported and Aaton still makes new cameras, so you can always get parts for an XTR directly from the factory. These cameras run for between $2500 - $4000 used. In terms of prime lenses, there are only two choices; Arri/Zeiss and Optar. Why? Well, because zeiss die the right thing from day one, they made a special set of super 16mm primes. Arri eventually put their name on them and marketed them as Arri/Zeiss primes. Optar's are copies of the Zeiss primes, so they're very similar, for a lot less. There are THREE versions of the Arri/Zeiss lenses, the V2 and V3's are the best. Same goes for Optars, the most recent versions are a lot better, but anything will work. Arri/Zeiss primes, which are a kit of 5 (9.5mm, 12mm, 16mm, 25mm, 50mm, F1.2) go for $6-$10k used depending on the version. Optars which are a kit of 6 (8mm, 9.5mm, 12mm, 16mm, 25mm, 50mm F1.3) usually go for $5 - $6k used depending on version. You won't find a better set of primes specifically designed for 16mm then those. In terms of zoom lenses, there are a few more choices. Again, Arri/Zeiss makes what's arguably the best zoom lens (price v performance) for S16 is a 11-110 F2.2 MKII. They go for around $5k used. The older MKI version isn't designed for super 16, so it won't cover the larger frame. This means you have to buy one with an Optex 1.2x extender, which are hard to find used, but possible. You COULD save a grand or two. The other two zoom's worth discussing are the Angenieux 11.5-138 F2.3 and Canon 11-165 F2.5 and 8-64 F2.4. Those lenses are harder to find used, but they're two grand more then the Arri/Zeiss and not MUCH better. Of course, after you buy a body you'd want a rail system (which comes with some cameras), mattebox, follow focus, tripod and maybe an AC monitor for your video tap. So if you buy a body for the minimal price of $2500, those Optar primes for $5k, Zeiss zoom for $5k, you're looking at around $15,000 for the entire kit including accessories. There are so many other ways to go though. Eclair NPR/ACL and Aaton LTR can take different lens mount adaptors, which allow you to run still camera glass and are A LOT cheaper. Bolex EBM is a great package which takes C mount lenses and can adapt to pretty much anything. However, the Bolex doesn't have a video tap, hard to find super 16, is very loud (forget about sync sound) and are daylight spools stock, 400ft magazines are expensive and rare. Cinema Products Gismo and CP16R, aren't very good choices and most of the other cameras are either garbage OR A LOT more money, like the Arri 416 and Aaton Xtera, which are the most recent cameras made. The guide I outlined above however, is the road most people travel. It's easy to find those components and make them work right away. I'm a HUGE fan of the Arri/Zeiss lenses and the Aaton camera, but that's personal preference having used most of the other cameras out there.

Ohh I whole heartedly agree, they are two completely different animals which have little to do with one another outside of the final result. It's like physically drawing animation on paper, tracing it to cells and filming those cells vs using a stylus to paint in photoshop and doing all the animation steps digitally for a digital output. To me, the biggest difference is the lack of a physical asset. One could say that video tapes and SD cards are a physical asset, but they really aren't. Paper drawings/cell's and film are physical assets because the image created exists in the same analog plane as our bodies until it's destroyed. Sure film needs to be processed in order to see an image, but that doesn't take away from it's final appearance since you COULD do this work at home. When our race is pushed to extinction, be it war, famine, plague, asteroid or unforeseen circumstances, what we leave behind for the survivors won't be digital technology, because none of it will work. It will be analog that will survive; statues, buildings, bridges, roads... and our past will be remembered not through a computer display, but through printed pictures and paintings, records that can be played by spinning by hand and using a needle as a stylus, musical instruments and of course film. In my eyes, this is one of the reasons why formats which can be heard and seen by humans without the use of "decoders" are so important. Motion picture film is one of those formats and in this example, it shares nothing with it's digital and even analog "video" component. Can I be so bold to predict that digital technology will be our undoing as a culture and perhaps eventually lead to the end of our civilization? We spend so much money and time developing worthless nothingness that is to be consumed using digital devices and no time researching/studying how those developments have destroyed our culture and planet. When everyone can do anything at any time, what is the reason for existence?

Umm because it was a live broadcast and you can't make film, live. Mind you, the "archives" of those telecast events look like crap and the filmed material has been used in countless documentaries, including ones blown up to IMAX.

... doesn't look good either? I mean the vast majority of theaters are still projecting 2k with decade old equipment that has gone through minimal maintenance. Unlike film projectors which are usually cleaned between every run OR at worse every day, digital projectors are rarely cleaned. Dust/dirt builds up on the display devices, mirrors and lamp housings to the point where the image is heavily degraded. A lot of theaters hire outside assistance to clean projectors, but its a time consuming and expensive process, not just a simple wipe down of a gate and lens. So theaters in most cases, simply don't bother and it leads to degrading images.

Umm, you do know that bridge of spies and Wolf of Wallstreet were both 35mm eh? Or is that the joke? ;)