Tyler Purcell

A fine grain super 16 color negative can resolve around 2.5k. Same fine grain stock in square standard 16 is a bit more then 2k. Once you increase the grain structure with higher speed stocks, you loose a lot of the resolution. In fact, Vision 3 500T is only around 1k worth of resolution in super 16. So unless your shooting fine grain B&W negative in super 16, there is no reason to go higher then 2k. However... if you are working with square material, I highly suggest scanning at 2.5k or above, this way you have some wiggle room to zoom in and fill the wide screen frame if you want. In terms of distribution 2k vs 4k. Considering the vast majority of theatrical releases are being finished in 2k today, it's pretty evident that 4k isn't important. A lot of older playback systems can't even accept the 4k material. So you'd have to make a 2k DCP anyway, so it really comes down to the added expense, is it worth it? If you telecine all the negative, cut your film digitally and use that original telecine for marketing purposes, someone buys the film, just tack on $50k to do a 4k deliverable.

Pay TV/Internet drama's have gotten so good, it's scary for filmmakers. I don't even have the time to watch much of it, but the few shows I have been dedicated to watching have been so well produced, its really shocking. Reminds me a lot of when Law and Order first came out, how well that show was produced, but even better!

Yep SR's are real tanks, totally robust. My only beef with the camera is how the pull down does all the work and how the gate can wear very easily. Otherwise, they're a great deal if you don't need a S16 camera. There were many converted, but then you've gotta find Arri B mount S16 glass, which can be challenging and expensive. Man, I've seen SR's for for a grand on ebay and SR2's for not much more. S16 cameras generally start around 1500, depending on the condition. I've personally serviced SR, Aaton's and Bolex's. Arri's design is so nice and compact. With that being said, I personally prefer Aaton's design. It's very clever and it results in a much quieter camera that has better registration, which is pretty incredible to think of because nobody would consider the SR having a problem with registration!

People don't want to think. They want to hit the theater or turn on the television as an escape from their life. The problem is, our lives today are so frantic, so full of fantasy, mass-produced entertainment feels like they need to be over powering. So they spend all this time producing products which are way over the top in a desperate attempt to extract every penny they can from the audience. Marketing today is so unbelievably crazy, it never ceases to amaze me we get anything done.

I've had far worse luck with rental cameras having problems then cameras I bought on ebay. People treat rental gear like crap and personal cinematographers equipment, is usually in far better shape. How do you know? Well, ya can't buy anything that looks like it came from a rental house and you've gotta ask a lot of questions. Then you've gotta do a camera test to insure it works before going and shooting a product. You need certain assurances what you buy will work, like the previous owner did a short film with the camera and he can send you a copy. All of that is so easy to do and if they don't have that stuff, then you move on.

I've personally done the math at buying vs renting S16 equipment and honestly, it's a lot cheaper to buy it on a credit card and sell it when done. A lot of people use this method of "funding" projects and it does work. It will save you the aggravation of always having to borrow/rent to finish your film and when you're done you can either keep the stuff and pay it off or sell it to get back your money. I like the "buy low sell high" method of this... good deals can be found on ebay all the time, it's just a question of being patient. In terms of the Krasnagorsk, they're real junk in my opinion. Do they work? They CAN work. Are they any good? not really. The Bolex is a far better design in my opinion. I've worked on both and you couldn't get me near a Krasnagorsk again. They're such buckets of bolts inside, it's just a poor/cheap design which is why they're so cheap on ebay.

Well that's interesting for sure and it does suck that Fuji doesn't make camera negative. However, the Alexa only really has ONE LOOK anyway. I mean you aren't getting a Fuji look out of it. There are plenty of labs around the country who can process 35mm and do a good job. So to complain about a LACK of ANY lab infrastructure is probably unwarranted. Most of the labs do mail-in work because there are still plenty of people shooting film to keep them busy. Anyway, I'm glad you posted that because it does settle things a bit. It's unfortunate his experience on Hail Caesar wasn't better.

Great, glad you like it! I shoot mostly with the BMPCC and it's such a small imager, it's very sensitive to the glass quality. So maybe that's why I didn't care for the quality.

Any timecode marker that's directly related to the song will work fine. I didn't think of the protools one, but that's a great idea! :) Can you sync the ipad app to pro tools? How killer would THAT be? :)

Welcome to hollywood, where the "people" dictate what the artist makes.

I've always used slates or hand claps to sync. Labs like timecode slates, slaved to the recorder so they can sync for you during the telecine process. With that said, on music video's, I never sync the sound since ALL of your sound is from the same source; the song. I lay in the song and whatever picture matches I use. All you need to do is take notes on a piece of paper to which sections are at what foot count. This way in editing you aren't too lost. But it's really easy to sync music videos in post without recording any audio on set. Your idea of running a video camera is also a good one, that would give you a decent reference as well. If you had a camera with timecode output, you could run it to a device that would display it. Then simply turn the film camera towards the display before every take and you've got your sync marker! :)

Yep! :)

I've had mine up for 3K and nobody wants it. :( Seems like everyone is dumping film cameras for peanuts. If it were 3 perf, there would be some value.

That is an Aaton XTR, though I think it's an original one not a PROD. I think the price is too high. I've seen PL mount Prod's go for $2500 on ebay in similar configuration. The standard XTR was Aaton mount, but most of the Prod's were PL mount. I'd ask the seller if it's PL. If it is, make him an offer and see if they bite. If it's Aaton mount, don't waste your time. It's nearly identical to the LTR which is about 1/3 the price. People will argue the magnetic drive system on the XTR is quieter, but from my experience the mechanical drive isn't what makes the noise anyway. Ohh I have the same video tap, it works good, but it's cumbersome. Man they're all over ebay now! http://www.ebay.com/itm/Aaton-XTR-Prod-Super-16mm-camera-package-/231833540161?hash=item35fa5b1641:g:a04AAOSwFMZWsMUB

I worked in trailers (and still do sometimes) for a while. Most of today's trailers are cut by speciality houses. They are delivered an extremely rough cut of the film to work with, sometimes a six to twelve months before release date. The trailer house will use that to cut a promotional teaser with, not knowing what is in the final cut. Once the film has picture lock, the trailer house will do another revision with the material as seen in the final product. Generally speaking, things like visual effects in trailers are the first shots worked on and are done very quick. So early release teasers, generally don't represent the film. In the past during the film days, it was common practice to use unwanted material for trailer cutters because they'd literally get outtake reels on 35mm to cut from. A lot of films of the past even had special 2nd unit crews who's job it was to specifically shoot material for teasers. Once people switched to computer based NLE editing, trailer houses were one of the first to migrate. This allowed them to cut from an entire feature without having to deal with prints and such. Remember, trailers are just marketing, so their job is to get asses in the seats. Most trailers are deceptive for that exact reason and studio execs have their fingers meddling in them even more so then the final film.

Dang man, wish I was still living in Boston. Your film is exactly the kind of project I let people borrow equipment for. I'm actually sponsoring a film this month, same deal, super low budget. Anyway... having been an Arriflex devotee for 20 years, I've finally learned why Aaton makes the best reasonably priced super 16 camera. The Arri 416 is arguably the best S16 camera made, but most of it's technology comes from Aaton. The NPR is an unusual beast, it's a bit on the noisy side and it's not a hand holding camera at all. It has some cool features like an adjustable shutter angle and easily removable motor. However, those aren't very important in the grand scheme of things. I've only used an NPR once and didn't really care for it. The CP16 is a workhorse, but it's an old dog. They're a "threading" camera, so you put the magazine on top and then thread it. As a consequence, there are a lot more potential issues that could cause the film to scratch or get dirty. Every single thing I've shot with a CP16 has come out dirty as all get out. Also, you loose quite a bit of film every time you load and if you dare only check the gate from the front of the camera, you may find yourself having a pressure plate issue like I had once. I shot a whole day with a huge scratch on the back of the film, ruining the entire show. Then you add the special lens mount, the horrible viewfinder and battery belt system, it's just wonky. The SRII is a great camera, it really is. The best thing about it is the simplicity! Plus the older models use Arri B mount, which means lenses are a lot cheaper then PL mount like the big cameras. The SR series of cameras also has a pretty decent viewfinder, very nice magazines, they shoulder very nicely and have good on-board batteries that are available still today. The only down side to the SR's is that the gates registration system does almost all the work. This can lead to registration issues, not that I've personally seen in the years I've shot with them, but evidently it does happen with worn cameras. Evidently the gate simply wears to the point of no return and used SR's can be worth nothing due to that issue. I've heard of many people replacing complete gates due to that issue. Again, I haven't physically seen it, but I've been scared by it. So why Aaton? Well, I love the magazine design, which feeds the film on it's own, without putting stress on the pulldown claw. It uses a spring loaded gate as well, which keeps the film in the path properly. It's the quietest S16 camera I've ever used. I just shot something with it a few days ago indoors in a silent room and nobody knew the camera was running but the operator, that's pretty impressive. Aaton also has interchangeable lens mounts and NO interference from the viewfinder. So you can put on a PL mount and use 35mm PL glass if you want. The stock Aaton mount can be adapted to Arri B and Nikon without much effort. Plus, did I mention it's awesome for hand holding? It's the best at hand holding, it fits right on your shoulder perfectly and really works great. Aaton also was smart with their video tap, they put it in the handle instead of off to the side, so it can't catch on anything if running around. The later XTR's didn't do that, which is really annoying and part of the reason I haven't bought one yet for my school. If you really want to be cheap (since it's a non-sound movie), I'd buy a Bolex EBM S16 with 400ft magazine. You can find them on ebay any day of the week and they work great. I love my EBM, it just flat out works and again, can be adapted to work with PL, Canon or Nikon glass, if you can find the adaptor. It's a small camera as well, making it really easy to carry around and get some great shots with. I have the OEM battery system as well, which works great. The stock C mount lens system is pretty decent as well, lots of good cheap glass. Not all of it covers S16 however, but you can find stuff if you look around. Honestly, any of these cameras would do you justice. I'd be MORE then happy to ship you my EBM, but its not S16, I have it for people who plan on shooting standard 16, which there are quite a bit of these days.

The AF-100 is an 8 bit 4:2:0 camera, internal recording and external output. The AF-100A add's a 10 bit 4:2:2 output, but still records 8 bit 4:2:0. So if you have a non-A camera, the external recorder won't do much. If you have an A camera, it would be a pretty substantial difference. The Assassin is a great little box with a decent display, but no reason to own if you aren't getting any benefit from it.

There really aren't very many projectionists anymore, just people who push buttons.

Mine is a 10 - 100 version with the optex S16 conversion, which turns it into a 12-120. It was a freebee of sorts, kinda thrown into a prime kit I bought. I really only got it because I wanted a longer lens for some shots. Then I started shooting with it on my Aaton LTR and I was like, holy crap this thing is amazing. It's really unfortunate people charge so much money for the S16 version, the modifications aren't that expensive to make.

That's right, the film era lenses don't have the same resolution as the current digital era lenses, like the one's I'm using. I do use the same lenses on S35 sized imagers all the time and they look much better. So that's really the only testing I've done, mostly with high resolution stills, rather then moving images so it's easier to test. Not saying the Zeiss 10 - 120 is a bad lens, I think it's a fantastic lens.

Observation based on experience with both the lens and the camera in question. I use Super 35mm glass on my Pocket camera and most of it isn't sharp enough. Out of my 5 lens kit, only two lenses have a crisp enough center for a small imager like the pocket camera has. It's not like film which already has softness to it. You will absolutely notice the lens being a bit softer with a 2x extender. Maybe not on film, but with the pocket camera, absolutely.

HA! Probably not VHS... lowest quality "analog" video I'd ever use is Betacam SP. At least you have separate color channels. Tho, I was never a fan of VHS. I was more of a betamax, Hi8 guy... turned Betacam SP/Digibeta. :) Some of those three tube cameras are very cool looking though. I'd plug one of those into a portable 3/4" SP recorder, that would make an interesting combo! I did a whole documentary series on one as a kid, looked pretty cool actually.

All modern digital content watched on your home television blends together. There is nothing really separating well made television from theatrical content. This is one of the huge points about the whole 120/240hz televisions which come from the factory with image smoothing turned on. People are use to that look today, they don't know it looks like crap. I'll say this much... an old school analog Sony XBR television and laserdisc source, looked pretty darn good. It looked far better then a digital representation of standard definition. In fact, I've tried to copy laserdisc's to my computer and never once have gotten them to look anywhere near the quality of the ol' analog CRT. Until the last decade, CRT's were the industry standard in image quality and ya know what, I'd go so far as to say those HD broadcast monitors are probably the best looking analog viewing devices ever made. Today's monitors are so inferior, they have to rely on high definition sources to even look remotely acceptable due to the low-end scalers used to up-scale and convert analog to digital and display it on an HD set. It's the same with film. It's superior to digital in so many ways, not just because it's an exact representation of the light on set, but it doesn't go through nearly the same translation/manipulation. As I've said may times, we're analog creatures, digital doesn't exist without specialized devices to convert analog to digital and back again. There is a great deal of loss in this process from light source through projection. Today's artists manipulate that loss into something that looks generally hyper reality, rather then a piece of art. What's lacking is education, it's that simple. I personally could care less if people shoot film. I shoot most of my stuff digitally because nobody cares on broadcast television or video streaming. Television today is such a disposable product, there doesn't seem to be any logical reason to spend money on film unless the show is something that has serious social impact/meaning. What I care about is the ability for film to exist as a complete workflow from image capture through distribution without digital manipulation. This requires cameras, stock, labs and projectors, to exist indefinitely. The problem we have today is that filmmakers who would like to do a complete photochemical workflow and distribution, have no way to accomplish that. A good example of this was a recent conversation I had with Fotokem about shooting 2 perf and doing an optical to 4 perf anamorphic for projection. They had zero interest in getting me a budget on that. I asked three times, sent e-mails and even though I gave them all my numbers, they just ignored me. How is that a reliable workflow? Where is the online interactive worksheet where I can select my workflow and it spits out a number on the back end? Why did 'The Revenant' not shoot film? Because they didn't have a reliable lab. Why didn't 'Beasts of No Nation' shoot 16 like they were slated to? Because there was no lab. These are very easy problems to solve, but nobody is solving them. Nobody is standing with the filmmakers between them and the labs trying to work the deal/workflow to make it happen. Finally, film projectors should be a necessity and projectionists should be trained on their use. There is no excuse for film prints of movies made on film, shouldn't be projected on film. These are just a few of the things I see and that's why I'm starting Celluloid Dreaming. We are going to solve these problems one by one and tackle the very difficult task of making a difference. First starting with education of young filmmakers. Teaching them the ropes of 16 and 35mm filmmaking on celluloid. The format in general needs to be a lot easier to deal with as well, there is no excuse for not getting back to someone on pricing. There are great labs out there, Cinelab in Boston for one of them. I call those guys and I get answers in 10 seconds with a huge smile on their faces loving the fact I still shoot film. I'm 2800 miles away and THEY care, yet here in California, nobody appears to give a poop. It's frustrating and I'm trying my best to make a difference.

Yep and the S16 version exists, but are prohibitively expensive. I did the math, it would cost LESS to shoot 2 perf 35mm on a 3 week shoot with a camera deal through panavision, then it would to shoot S16 and V-lite anamorphic's.

But digital prints never look anywhere near as good as photochemical ones. "crisper" for sure, but doesn't look nearly as good color wise as an actual print. The problem is, we haven't made "decent" prints for a long time now. I saw The Force Awakens on 35mm and it looked like crap, real disappointment. It's exactly what I expected, it was simply not done right and a lot of digital prints in the mid 2000's up till today, were done the same way. In the grand scheme of things, it was a great big conspiracy to keep people moving towards digital distribution. It's all about money and the studio heads wanted to save money, so the pawned off digital upgrades to the theaters so the studio's could make more money. So far every year since the move to digital has been more and more PROFITABLE for the studio's, even with the HUGE flops. Why? Because the theaters now charge more money then ever for digital distribution and they don't need to pay top projectionists or film prints or shipping those prints. Today's distribution model is practically free compared to the days of photochemical filmmaking and all that savings goes directly into the pockets of the studio's and the theaters pay for all the constant never-ending upgrades. Film projectors run forever and digital projectors? They're being replaced and serviced constantly. It's just really sad... and it pains me to think that we've been watching crappy prints since around 2000 when people started pushing DI and digital film-out's. How amazing those films could have been if done photochemically.