Tyler Purcell

Can you imagine pushing 19' two stops on 15/70 and cropping down to 2.20:1 for standard 5/70? It would probably look friggen amazing still. Get crazy sensitivity without the crazy grain. I personally think that's their intention. Still, it would be cool for Kodak to formulate a 1000 or even 1200 ASA stock that had smaller grain then 19'. Imagine that much sensitivity with the same grain level of 19'.

There are four systems on 35mm film. Dolby digital = little varying dots between each sprocket hole SDDS Sony Dynamic Digital Sound= Little varying dots on the edges of the film DTS Digital Theater Systems = optical timecode track offset from the analog track Optical Stereo = Usually encoded with Dolby A or SR noise reduction None of these systems are compatible with one another, they all require different readers. Most older projectors put the readers above the projector, though more modern projectors put it in the optical audio housing, which has two readers on modern projectors, one for DTS and one for analog stereo. So there would be THREE individual readers the film needs to go through= DD, DTS, Analog. SDDS came and went very fast, it was a more advanced 24bit system, but Sony licensing was expensive and even though it was a superior system to Dolby Digital, there were problems with dirty prints and edge damage, which caused the format to be phased out. Even though DTS was only 6 channel initially, it faired well because unlike Dolby Digital and SDDS which were both digital on film, DTS had no audio on film. Where splices effected digital on film, they didn't effect the analog timecode. DTS read so far in advance, it was prepared for pretty much anything, so you could splice the living crap out of a film and not skip a beat. This is why MOST theaters stuck with DTS. Before discrete soundtracks on 35mm, 70mm was the only format with enough real estate for the 6 channels of audio. This is why you see films shot and/or projected in 70mm in stereo or surround sound from as far back as the early 50's. Originally, every studio had their own format, some used 4 channels in front and one in the rear. Others divided it up like we have today, three in the front, one in the rear and one low frequency effects. It wasn't until more recently they made stereo rear channels. Even though there was magnetic sound available for 35mm, very few films were projected that way. For a small period, there were even VistaVision projectors with mag strips at some theaters as well, but it was yet another failed format. It was the mighty powerhouse of Fox that pushed through 70mm and since they owned more theaters, the format became synonymous with a "special" experience and at the time, there was nothing else like it. For all the grander of 70mm, with it's surround sound and cleaner image, 35mm was left on the back burner. Even when Dolby A and SR were common place at the big theaters, the smaller houses still only had mono sound. It wasn't until the advent of Dolby Digital that theaters started pushing for better sound. So in the 90's there was a huge push and by the late 90's, 70mm was dead and 35mm had reached it's precious technology wise. I remember wanting to see Schindler's List really badly because it was officially the first movie to be distributed in digital audio... ohh and the thought of seeing a film shot in B&W reversal was amazing. Unfortunately, my parents didn't let me and I was a wee bit too young to see it on my own. So we waited until the summer of 1993 to see the second film released with digital audio; Jurassic Park. Funny how both were Spielberg films. I'm certain there were other smaller films released in between, but those were the most exciting. Now, 70mm is all digital. It works with a very similar format to DTS, timecode on film and disks for playback. I'm pretty sure Hurt Locker is the only one that you can see the 35mm print on BluRay. The other one's, the BluRay's are made from the DI. I heard there was a photochemically made print of Carol running around, but the BluRay is absolutely the DI. There is another 16mm film being made right now by some european filmmaker, who is doing a festival run on 35mm with a blow up and the normal theatrical and video release is supposedly 4k DI. I read the article on Facebook, not sure of it's authenticity. The problem with blow-up's is that you always loose crispness through the added lensing. The digital process doesn't do that, in fact 16 scanned back to 35mm will always be crisper. Yet there is always data loss going from film to digital and back to film again. So it's a catch 22... which is why 4 perf 35mm was used for so many decades. It's an identical format to theatrical prints. You will notice, S16mm acquisition for theatrical, has expanded since the advent of DI processing.

Actually, projector speed isn't that much of a problem because it will only be off by a small margin and the computer can change pace to compensate. It just needs to be constantly reading the timecode and adjusting.

DTS, Digital Theater Systems, already solved all the problems with syncing film to digital. It's a simple timecode pulse recorded onto an optical audio track. In my eyes, this is really the best solution because ANY 16m projector with an optical reader could output the data into a decoder box. It's that decoder box, which would take analog and turn it into digital, which is the only real piece of hardware required. My thought is to make the box two way, so it can take timecode in and spit out analog, then visa versa for projection. This way if you can score an optical soundtrack recorder, all you've gotta do is plug it in and let it run. You could take the un-processed blow up, throw it into the recorder and stripe it with timecode. Of course, there would have to be some sort of sync mark on the film, maybe a punch or something because you'd be exposing that little bit of film when loading the optical soundtrack camera. It doesn't have to be perfect, it just needs to be within a few frames. Then in the playback software on your computer with the digital soundtrack, you can adjust offset based on the film's countdown and 2 pop. If you do the math right, it should work. Even if you don't, you can adjust the offset in the computer to any number you want, within the rage of timecode printed onto the film. Then you can offset the soundtrack digitally to match the film, save it and you're all done forever. In terms of aspect ratio, that's super easy.. Anamorphic lenses. I see projection lens adaptors on ebay all the time. It's then down to the optical printer and theoretically, you could use the same adaptor for optical camera and projector, why not? Sure, you'd have to design your optical lineup using lenses that were similar sizes, but it would work. This way you can get almost any aspect ratio you want out of straight 1.37:1 16mm. Obviously, you need the soundtrack area or you could turn it into super 16. I've personally found converting projectors to super 16 to be something of a chore. Plus, now you've gotta develop your own optical path for the timecode and the film would be incompatible with any other projector. I'm personally not a fan of 16mm blow up's. I think 16 makes a wonderful acquisition format, but once you get into projection, it's tricky because the prints are so fragile. It's not like the polyester 35mm theatrical prints, they're so robust, you've gotta put in quite a bit of effort to scratch/tear them. If I were making a feature, I'd be blowing up to 35mm because then you've got something you can take anywhere you want to project and it will survive forever. Obviously for something shot on super 8, this isn't worth while. But for stuff acquired on Super 16, you've got a lot more real estate on 35mm and it still looks really good, especially with low-grain stocks. If you wish to watch a few films done this way, grab "Hurt Locker". It was a complete photochemical finish and the BluRay is made from the 35mm print. It looks pretty darn good, worth watching for any fan of narrow gauge. Remember it's long in the tooth now as well, our modern stocks are far better then they were back then.

If Arriflex sold 50 SR's, they would have shelved the project, discontinued the camera and blamed the people in their company for it not being a success. If you make 50 of something by hand in your garage and sell them all, you're most likely going to consider that a success no matter what. So what Logmar did was right in the middle... for a camera manufacturer they were a failure. For a hand-made, one-off product, I guess you could consider them successful. I consider it a failure because I assume their eventual goal was to propitiate the format of Super 8 AND eventually make money off the huge investment required to make them, non of which happened with only 50 examples ever made. Plus, in the world of engineering and design, ANY hand-made product is a prototype. Only in mass production does your product loose that status. This is because in manufacturing, you will fine tune the design to the point of it being easier to make, less costly to make and be able to sell them for less money in the long run. Lets face it, had the Logmar been a $999 retail price camera, it would have put Pro 8's refurbishing program out of business AND they would have sold MANY more units. My point and only reason I responded is because I consider it a complete utter failure, where Kodak's $499 entry Super 8 camera is an entirely different market. Yes, it's the next generation Logmar. It has many of the same features, but they made it for mass production, they removed the prototype design look and feel, making it A LOT cheaper to manufacture. Again, pricing is $499 - $999 depending on the features. That's a HUGE price difference to the Logmar. Right, because the Kodak camera falls into an acceptable price range and it's not some hand-made prototype, it's mass produced. The Kodak is like buying a Blackmagic Pocket Camera. It low-cost, entry level capturing to the lowest acceptable quality resolution. The Logmar does virtually the same thing as the Kodak, minus some bells and whistles, captures to the lowest resolution film format, yet its 5 times more money. The assumption there is that anyone buying a Logmar, must need it's features for some crazy big project like a feature film, where the camera would stand out amongst it's peers. Otherwise, why would ANYONE by one? Yes, in regards to the vast majority of people who shoot super 8, this is the case. I mean, I do live in Hollywood, the home of the filmmaking "hipsters". I know many of them personally and they dress up in fancy retro clothing, go out around los angeles and make their little super 8 movies. They choose their cameras on ebay, based on the looks, which one is more retro then the other. How do I know this? Because I have a bunch of super 8 cameras and when I lend people cameras, they always pick the same one. It's the most "retro" looking of the bunch. These guys don't care if it's out of focus, if it's got gate weave, if the colors aren't perfect or it's grainy. The reason they shoot super 8, is to get that look in the first place. As you well know, I've been working on a feature film that we're shooting an entire section in super 8 to match older material shot in the 80's. We just did our first big shoot and it looks great, but he choose the worst of my cameras because he wanted to look cool on location with it. I keep saying, I'll buy a better camera and the results we keep getting back are exactly what he wants, so we're not changing anything. Honestly, I just dislike the logmar because they tried to mix old with new and it just doesn't work, nobody wants that. Yes carl, I've gone to Pro 8 and worked with the camera. I went to the open house few years ago when it first came out and spent quite a bit of time with it. I was tremendously unimpressed and dismayed. They had the opportunity to make something wonderful and in my opinion, they blew it. Now they want to make 16mm and 35mm cameras? Give me a break. When I can go out and buy an Aaton LTR or XTR for a few grand, why would anything they offer the public be any better? Heck, I just sold my beautiful Moviecam 35mm camera for 3 grand! Do you think Logmar's camera will be anywhere near that price OR produce less than 20db when running, which is kinda what's required for shooting sound these days. Good luck with that! See, I care about film too much Carl. I want it to be LOW COST, not high cost. The only way to solve that problem is to get more people shooting. If you charge them tens of thousands for cameras, they simply won't shoot. If you charge them a few hundred dollars, they may bite and that's why USED cameras AND the Kodak camera, are steps in the right direction and why the Logmar is a complete, total, utter failure in the grand scheme of things.

Yes, viewfinders are everything Carl. Using a standard definition low-resolution video camera as your ONLY VIEWING DEVICE on a "film" camera, is ridiculous. It would have been cheaper for Logmar to buy a GoPro and make a HD viewfinder system, then what they wound up with. The whole idea of LCD display menu's on a film camera to access basic functions, is scary. I wouldn't consider making 50 units of something "successful". They made 50 prototypes and perfected the design which they appear to be selling a modified version to Kodak. Plus, most of the people who shoot super 8 are looking for "retro", not modern. When they go out and shoot super 8, the look of the camera, the feel of the camera, how the camera is used, these are more critical then the final output. Plus, the pricing of the camera is insane for "retro" people, who are the bulk of the Super 8 users. It's like selling a laser reading record player. People who play records, don't want lasers and electronics, they want analog... that's the whole point. So Logmar's grand scheme of making an electronic based camera that shoots a "retro" format, is in essence, going against what would sell. So... no, the Logmar was a complete failure in the grand scheme of things. The 50 cameras they made, many of them not sold, will disappear into the cabinets of those who purchased them and most likely forgotten. You and maybe 3 other people, will most likely shoot stuff with theirs. However, it's just a toy in the long run. Another "cool gadget" for the equipment locker. As I've said many times, when someone shoots a theatrically run feature on one, I'll perk my ears up. What matters to filmmakers like myself, is the usability on set, more then anything else.

$5000 + shipping and tax, for a black box with no viewfinder, that makes quite a racket when running, shoots only 2 1/2 minutes at a time and looks like it was made in someone's garage shop. It's missing ALL of the critical things that a modern, small, light-weight motion picture camera NEEDS and has electronic features that aren't worth the money. The developers of the logmar and Kodak camera, don't understand that on-board audio isn't as critical as a viewfinder. If you can't see what you're shooting properly, the camera is worthless. A low-resolution LCD display isn't a viewfinder. In fact, standard def digital cameras with small LCD's are beyond worthless as well. If they had any experience with developing cameras, they'd know this. If the Logmar and Kodak cameras had actual optical viewfinders, were dead silent and dumped all the ancillary electronic crap that were the crux of the cost, the cameras may have sold better due to the lower price. So it's a real catch 22 and it's why I consider the Logmar made by a "bloke in a garage" because any real camera designer wouldn't have made those silly mistakes. It's not a film camera, it's some hodgepodge thrown together half digital, half analog nonsense which doesn't really have a place. Which is kind of my beef. They're aiming for an audience who doesn't really care about quality. The Logmar looks fine, no real problems. But so far it doesn't look like the kodak will have that mechanic block. I personally haven't seen a perfect focused Super 8 image outside of something shot on a Logmar. Double the resolution of super 8, no registration problems, no backplate focus problems, longer film length (400ft loads), silent camera availability, standard optical viewfinders, most sync sound cameras have rails and accept larger/standard professional lenses as well. You can get a real decent Super 16 package with lenses for LESS THAN a Logmar. Plus the cost to shoot Super 16 isn't much more then super 8. Yep, they're trying to attract the "retro" owners and ya know what, I think they will! Their package here in the states is very attractive, from low camera price to flat rate stock, processing and transfer. This is what the retro people want and ya know what, Kodak isn't dumb about it. Will it push more people to shoot film who don't already shoot film? Maybe a few... and I do think it's a fad that will come and go. Still, it's a smart marketing decision for Kodak and it makes them relevant again. Ya know, people with money, sometimes they don't want to buy used stuff. They don't want to deal with it, so they only buy new and that's kind of the market Kodak is going after. They aren't marketing it to people who already shooting film, who already have cameras.

You could say the same thing about cinematography and art direction as well. "We don't have the time to fix that, lets fix it in post" It's a lot harder to fix audio in post then picture. Audio doesn't have the dimension of picture, you can't separate frequencies and make it recognizable to the human ear. So it's extremely limited compared with picture. ARD or Automated Dialog Replacement, use to be a very main stream thing to do. It was almost required before we had the wireless technology we have today, where mic's can literally be placed on talent. Where the sets are quieter then they've ever been, due to silent cameras and a lot of careful modern techniques to reduce foot steps, camera dolly noise, etc. Sure, there are extreme cases where dialog is just unusable and ADR is required, but those happen less and less today. The set performance is always better anyway, it's rare an actor has the same passion about his role in the cold, dark, VO booth then they did on set, in costume with cameras rolling.

I've done a lot of work in the sound industry and you'd be surprised how much is set audio these days. People are getting lazier and lazier, the days of looping everything are long gone. Most movies use two mic's per person, lav and shotgun. They also are very cautious about set noise, making the dialog tracks pretty clean. Funny enough, stuff that seems like looping/ADR is a lot of times audio from different takes. This is a very common trick, used to cover up issues in delivery and even sounds on set. That mixed with a lot of modern cleanup methods, have helped set recordists, editors and mixers, create better and better on-set soundtracks. Sure, for big action films ADR is common place, but for the normal movie, it's rare.

The problem is that digitally making prints doesn't help anything really. Photochemical finishing is the only real way to make film differentiate itself from the world of digital. So all those fast digital print making machines, they're all just garbage in the grand scheme of things. Now... I DO have a machine which would solve a lot of problems. It's a printer that uses a super high resolution OLED display as a color source. What it does is allow a computer to control film color correcting and compositing. So you can use all the digital matte techniques and using the touch method, strike more consistent interpositives with soundtrack and color already done on one machine. This way, colorists and VFX guys can do more elaborate effects directly on film, without the use of an optical printer.

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.