Tyler Purcell

That's exactly right and even though companies like Arri use modern technology to develop their cameras, the technology we have today wasn't around when they developed even the 416 for example. It's so much easier to design things today then it's ever been and there are so many great young designers eager to work on a project like this who know the software inside and out. It's just a matter of finding one local, throwing down a few bux, giving them the concept and letting them run wild. By the time we've got a sample working in a computer, 3D printing will be MUCH better then it is today and hopefully we can make a complete 3D model of the products to check alignment before we cut anything on a mill. It does require a "hobbiest" mentality to begin with, that's really the only way to make it.

My design concept will be easy to thread AND maintain, kinda fool proof unlike some of the projection systems we use today which were developed 80+ years ago. I'm really focused on a design with low noise, light weight and easy to maintain/operate. The point with 2 perf projection is; there will be no splicing involved, films will be shipped already built. For longer or 3 perf 1.85:1 movies, there will be two projectors required, but the change over will be automated and seamless. Of course, the projector will integrate nicely with pre-existing platter systems, for theaters who already have a real projectionist. This way, our new projector can sit right beside a 4 perf/70mm film projector if necessary and pull from the same feed. Well, the system is going to use a modified rolling loop design, so the film itself won't be even close to being aligned when it hits the gate. Registration pin's are critical to alignment unfortunately, but as a consequence, the image will be rock solid. One or two pin's won't be enough as one edge of the film could twist slightly. Plus, you can use the registration pins location as the fine framing adjustment.

100% agreed, it's absolutely a masterpiece and the restoration is flat-out amazing. Our "modern" films don't hold a candle to it.

Yep... you're not going to get shallow depth of field and 4k imagery for that kind of price tag, it's just not going to happen. Plus, all those cameras you listed are UHD not 4k internal recording. Plus, they all record horrible 8 bit 4:2:0 long gop MPEG files, which are by far the worst to work with in post. All of those cameras are just toys, even though in some certain situations the A7S can do some incredible things like shoot in moonlight, for normal shooting the camera is meh. You can't make a sensor that's good for a few thousand ASA look acceptable at lower ASA's like when you shoot outdoors in daylight. If you're only shooting in the studio or interiors with low-light, with virtually no camera movement, then I guess why not? I could buy pretty much any camera I wanted, but gave away much of those features in order to have a decent file format for recording and a camera that's been designed from the ground up to be a cinema camera and not a still camera that just happens to record highly compressed MPEG files. But that's your decision obviously, from a filmmakers standpoint, I stay away from MPEG files.

Arclight hasn't released it's December 25th schedule yet. I assume they will project Hateful Eight as they are the premiere 70mm theater in L.A.

Offline edit will be done during the night where the film is sitting on a shelf waiting to be transferred. The editor will piece something together and with the director, be able to immediately look at the good and bad takes with synched audio. Then, the following day, the film footage will be substituted and/or film dailies will arrive for projection purposes. So you're still verifying the film looks fine, you just aren't transferring shots you don't need or want. I've installed telecine machines from many manufacturers and they can work fine off timecode (frame count) and search to a given shot. You would need a keycode/tc reader of course, but it would be easy. The idea of my project is for photochemical finish, so you would for sure be just doing a telecine.

Well, they did have all the same tools we use for 16 and 35 today. Most of them were destroyed however and that machine is the last one existing, which is really sad. People just throw things away, even if they're one of a kind.

I see huge cost savings. Since the EDL will control the telecine, the transfer will be much more efficient. Plus, there maybe rolls you don't even want to transfer, but you won't know until it's cut together.

First documentary on the production:

Here is the workflow: Monday shoot all day and send to lab for processing Monday night, editor will cut together the scene and choose what shots they want transferred. Tuesday morning, the lab will process and transfer those "selects" Tuesday evening, the editor will insert those selects. So basically, the system saves you from transferring everything. It also allows immediate cutting of scenes in decent quality with attached audio, to insure it's working before you get the film dailies. It also gives the proper timecode marks for the lab, so if you want film dailies, you can have only selects printed based on the EDL from the editor. So yes, you're still heavily relying on the film and it really doesn't change the workflow currently used, it just adds a few more tools to reduce cost and INSURE the scenes work well together prior to spending all that money on a transfer. What if you watch the cut scene prior to transfer and realize it doesn't work and it needs to be re-shot? Again, it's more for the indy filmmaker who may wish to run 2 or 3 takes before running film as well.

For Super 35 3 or 4 perf yes. For 2 perf, there really isn't anything outside of Panavision and Penelope. Well, I've got the people and they're excited about the project. Donations will come and we will get paid, but that's not the reason we're doing it. Sometimes you need to suck it up and do a project like this for the good of everyone else, rather then stuff your pockets with money. Umm, by pretty much everyone that rents cameras in L.A. This was the impetus to sell of their inventory, which unfortunately has already happened at most rental houses. I'm sure if you talked with Germany, you could get some parts for the 416 and Arricam's because they aren't that old. Outside of those cameras, parts are discontinued. This is why Panavision is so great because they developed their own systems, so they will survive. The problem is, you and me can't own a panavision camera. Ohh and by the way, most rental houses no longer have an in-house film camera service technician. In terms of camera support in the future, I have a feeling once we have a product to sell, we'll do one run a year or something and spend the rest of the time supporting it. Which is fine because that part of things I'm intimately familiar with. People want to have lens options and there really aren't any decent cheap PL lenses available. However, there is great still glass available. There is no reason to build anything unless you can do these things. I have some very clever ideas on how to deal with these problems. All of the video side comes from china, we would buy circuits that already exist and change the firmware to operate the way we want it to. This is all very easy stuff outside of the optical relay, which is tricky, but I firmly believe in keeping the optical viewfinder for a film camera. Ok... 2 perf academy, 2 perf super 35, 3 perf academy, 3 perf super 35, 4 perf academy, 4 perf super 35. Matted, un-matted, spherical, anamorphic, Dolby digital, DTS, Dolby A, Dolby SR, etc... there are so many formats, it's just ridiculous. I've done a lot of film projection in my day and the whole process is cumbersome and has never really been updated. For film to stay alive, it needs 2 formats... 1.85:1 3 perf and 2.40:1 2 perf, that's it! No anamorphic, no academy vs super 35, it's all the same. Nobody is going to buy a $50,000 35mm film camera, it's not going to happen. My goal is to have a camera system which is priced at a low enough level, owner-operators and rental houses can afford it without breaking the bank. I need to be UNDER the cost of current digital cinema cameras, so it's a no brainer. Is $10k to cheap? Yes, it really is... and the camera will most likely cost upwards of $25k when it's done. However, my goal is to keep it in that $10k range, to compete with used 35mm cameras. I'm pretty certain it's doable. There is no magic to a film camera and the mechanics haven't really changed for decades, heck Panavision still uses a variation of the mitchell design from before WWII. I also could care less about developing a system that pushes people towards DI. My whole point is to develop and camera and projection system that will be easy to use and most importantly, allow people to do photochemical workflows, saving them a considerable amount of money. Our camera will be easy to service because our PCB boards will be made specifically for our use. Alignment of key items will be using pins and keyways to insure proper re-installation. I want to build the digital world's film camera system, so that your average cinematographer can clean and maintain the system without the need of specialists. Finally, I honestly don't consider this a big deal. Remember, when the Arricam was developed, our current computer aided 3D development tools, didn't exist. Today we can build the whole thing in a computer AND run film through it to make sure we're close before actually building a rapid prototype. It would cost around $150k to do the 3D work and prototype, another $100k to build and develop a one-off and then probably $200k to build our first models. So we're looking at roughly a $450 - 500k development cost for both camera and projector. All of our core parts will be made in china, I already know many vendors who can build this stuff for us. We'll do all the assembly here in the states and of course each camera will be tested. To me, it's a no brainer. Raise the money over a few years via donations and get to work. It's just another challenge in life. If you don't take those challenges, you'll never be successful.

Well, what are the benefits of digital? - You can edit right away - You can see what you have as you're shooting it - You can gauge/judge exposure and look on a monitor - You don't really need a lab (on smaller shows) So, Imagine being able to edit right away with synched audio See the exact shot on a monitor without the ground glass nonsense Imagine being able to use that 2k reference digital video file incase your shot doesn't come out on film. Look at actual exposure on the digital side to make sure it's right on the film side (lots of math but doable) Don't really need the lab until you've cut together something We'd have a digital density record for each camera roll. That report will be sent to the lab along with the film, so when they process, they can compare the two and if there are any issues, there will be a red flag. Obviously scratches and other problems will be reported by the lab. Once the editor cuts the digital file, the lab will be told to scan only those particular shots from the negative with handles. Those files will be imported and linked in the editing program and go online immediately, without any labor. So the day after you shoot on film, you can see exactly what you shot on film in your editing system. Then the idea is to send the lab your EDL report after the show is cut and conform the original camera negative and strike a print. We'd have a simple digital audio system that allows for the timecode information to be read and sync directly to the editor. So when you're playing back the film on a projector, your editing system with all the audio will playback in sync. This can also be done with dailies if you want film dailies. Our 2/3 perf projector would be so small and portable, projecting dailies with good audio coming right from your editor, is totally possible. This is all doable, it just requires people who give a poop like myself, to make it work.

Ohh it's nearly impossible to find cameras to rent here in Hollywood. Panavision and Able Cine are the only two companies and they want a lot of money to rent them. 3 perf is easier to find, but still expensive. Everyone and their mom has 4 perf cameras, they're a dime a dozen. Actually, the biggest part of the problem is lens selection. My camera would have an interchangeable lens mounts, which means you can use Nikon, Canon, Sony, PL, Bayonet, Zeiss, Aaton, BNC mount glass. The front of the body will have spacers for each mount, so you can simply install the spacer ring and set the flange distance. Super 8 isn't a commercial format and the new camera isn't silent, so what's the point? Might as well buy a Bolex for a few hundred bux off ebay for your "art" film project because the best you can do with any super 8 camera is mess around with home movies and art stuff. There is only one state of the art 35mm camera, that's the Penelope and nobody is getting rid of those for cheap because they're pretty much perfect. My camera would be similar, but for a lot less money. Here are the big problems. 1) Arri no longer supports 35mm cameras. So once the electronics go bad, you're camera is dead. 2) The current cameras use ONE type of lens and they're very expensive. 3) The current cameras are designed for people who shoot film, not for modern digital users. 4) There are too many variables with older cameras, too many formats. In my view, there is no reason to spend money on "art" cameras like the new bolex digital and the logmar super 8 camera. They're a waste of money in my opinion because people who buy those cameras, aren't really spending enough money on film to keep it a viable product. My goal is to keep filmmaking on film and the only way to do that is with professional equipment that's affordable. Old rental gear that's unsupported by the manufacturer is worthless. We would be fundraising to make these products through my new non-profit. I'm an engineer as well, I know the challenges with breaking ground, but we're not in this to make money or be profitable. We're all in this because we want to see film stay alive and we need to donate our time to make it happen. Nobody will save film by trying to make money from it and that's our philosophy. Yes, the camera will be quiet. In fact, its going to be far less complex mechanically then most cameras. Our camera will be: - Ultra light weight, body will be made of cast magnesium and insulated. - Have mount's for Canon, Nikon, Zeiss, PL, B4 and BNC. Allowing still camera glass on 35mm for the first time. - Record timecode numbers right onto the film (no barcode, actual numbers) - Capture 2k digital images from a CMOS sensor with matching timecode - Capture audio from the external mixer and match it to the digital image. - Have HDSDI outputs for monitoring with a histogram and most importantly built-in exposure system that matches the film perfectly (lots of development needed, but it's doable) - Switchable movements (added cost) from 3 perf to 2 perf. (not 4 perf compatible) - Full optical viewfinder system (no onboard digital display) - Every change to the shutter angle, speed and exposure of the camera is matched on the digital side. - Kelvin and ISO are programmed into the digital camera based on the stock by the user - The magazines will use Arri's space saving technology. - Camera will use standard V mount 12v batteries with 4 pin power for accessories - Standard LOMO connectors for cinema power and accessories will also be included. - Camera body without optical viewfinder, mag and battery will be under 10lb - The pulldown system will be more like Aaton's, which is virtually silent. The camera and projector are two different units, they have no similarities in design.

So I've been thinking a lot about this and have realized the 2 perf and 3 perf 35mm camera and projection system is probably the way to go. Horizontal 4 perf 16 is cool, but it doesn't solve the projection issues, it's just another format for scanning and digital projection. The key is to design a 2 perf and 3 perf 35mm camera and projector system that's modernized with all the things we've discussed at a price point of around 10k for each item. It would be great to use standard mags which are easy to find for the camera and the projector would be an all new design. The camera should have a built in HD camera and record proxies to SD cards. The timecode of those proxy files will be burned onto the film itself as well so it's easy to cut the negative. I'd actually have the camera expose next to each frame the time code number so a negative cutter can see it. This way you can literally take your edl and cut the film. The camera would have two super 35 modes and be sold as one or the other 2 or 3 perf. The movement price will be expensive but if you wish to shoot a different format, totally buy able. The projector will have a digital projector unit built in so theaters can run trailers through it and once over it will autostart the film. Because 2 perf uses half the film, completed rolls can be sent aleady spliced together on reels. The projectionist just needs to thread the projector and start the movie. Audio will be some form of on board digital like Dolby digital, though I'd figure out a way to circumvent the parents. Of course the projector can be 2 perf or 3 perf, with a change of the gate and an electronic switch, the system can run either format. Though 3 perf films would be broken up onto 2 reels... Necessitating two projection systems but for those people who want a larger negative, why not? I envision a different system for film movement then what's been used in past projectors, more like a circle with plastic teeth on it that rotates the film through the entire projection path from the supply through the gate and out the bottom to the Take up. That circle will constantly move and the film will be pulled away from or pushed into it depending on where it needs to go. Since it's an all new format, you can put the audio reader anywhere you want. The gate would use a pull down system more smilar to a camera, though made to deal with projection. It would use plastic pull down claws and metal registration pins. I would make it 4 pin registered so those wobble problems of the past are gone. The projector would be small and portable with the led lamp in the middle of the rolling film mover. The whole assembly will have a cover to prevent dust from hitting the film. The take up and supply reels will sit behind the unit on a tripod. Motors will be integrated and easy to setup. It will be raised and lowered and like a film magazine butt up to the projector and lock in place so it can be covered as well to prevent dust from coming in. There will also be fim cleaning rollers before the film enters and when it exits.

The production cameras are no good. They over heat and blow up the internal battery. The 4k imager is real garbage and they are not friendly to work with. Honestly they were just a toy and people really assumed they were something else. The only real cameras blackmagic make are the pocket and Ursa/Ursa mini. I wouldn't bother with the new micro camera either, too many accessories to make work as a production camera. Plus you can get pocket cameras used for peanuts on eBay.

David is right, 400ft rolls of 16 are 11 min.

Well the Panasonic GH2 is really a still camera that shoots video. It records low-quality 8 bit 4:2:0 MPEG files, like it's later generation GH4 and DSLR's. By contrast, the Blackmagic Pocket camera shoots 10 bit 4:2:2 or 12 bit RAW. This gives you the full dynamic range of the imager for post production cleanup. If you want a still camera, buy a still camera. If you want a cinema camera, buy a cinema camera. Mixing the two can give you mixed results as MOST of the double purpose cameras are better at stills then moving image, mostly lacking a decent recording format. Now, I have two pocket cameras and for the little shows I produce, they works adequately. Nothing I shoot with it is going to the theaters, but for short subject narrative, doc, music videos, commercials, for web or broadcast, it works great. I use a Canon EF lens adaptor which allows me to run the Rokinon cine primes. I also have an older Canon Rebel still camera, but I use Canon glass with it. The reason is quite simple, most of the still glass has auto focus, stabilization and zoom, which are very nice to have for stills. With cinematography, you're generally taking your time to setup a shot, but with stills, you may wish to capture something that's moving. Having those three things will help greatly for still photography. So picking up a camera and glass specifically for stills, is probably a wise idea. Interchangeability is nice for those few times you're doing still life and can take your time setting up a shot, then you can use the Rokinon primes on your still camera. If you wish to learn more about the power of the Pocket camera, you can check out my video all about it below. Unfortunately, it's starting to get long in the tooth and Blackmagic will probably release something new for that form factor at NAB in 2016.

Well believe it or not, if you do proper coverage, the minimal ratio would be 5:1. The moment you add one flubbed line, you increase that ratio. So a conservative ratio on a scripted feature would be around 8:1. I always budget for 10:1 and a lot of my friends feel 10:1 is conservative, but I don't feel the same way. If you have good actors, storyboards and a tight shooting unit, you can shoot 10:1 without a problem. 10:1 ratio would be 900min of stock: 4 perf 35mm = 80,000 ft (80 rolls of film) 3 perf 35mm = 64,000 ft (64 rolls of film) 2 perf 35mm = 40,000 ft (40 rolls of film) 16mm = 32,000 ft (81 rolls of film)

Ohh for sure. Still my point from earlier was only in reference to bigger shows, not spending the money to build sets or even shoot much outdoors due to the cost. If the cost of shooting on location AND set building was decreased, we'd most likely see more films that aren't being forced to use special effects. That was the whole reason for brining "union's" up in the first place.

Thanks for the info Dom, yea it's for sure above my pay grade. ;) I'm actually a pretty good technician, I've worked on far more complex things in my life. I wanted to pull it apart to figure out if it was something that I and another machinist could do, but alas, I feel its a bit more then simply mechanical changes. It was great to understand how it works, lubricate everything and throw it back together again. That was a real treat and worth the effort. I'll contact those guys in Australia see what the deal is.

The 1st gen SR's were pretty loud for sync sound cameras. They got better over the years, the SR3's are by far the quietest. I agree with Dom, the SR3's are kind of the way to go because they fixed many of the issues of the earlier cameras. You could always the go the route I did, buy an Aaton LTR. I honestly like the SR more in a lot of ways, but the Aaton does do the job, it has excellent registration and most importantly, it's a lot cheaper to maintain. My Aaton is pretty quiet and with the barnie, it's silent. If you're interested, let me know because I've got a buddy selling one here in LA, he can cut you a killer deal on it, thou it's straight 16 not S16.

Well, that's good news then. It's interesting that my line producer, the many truck driving friends I have and even the vendors I've talked with, have said the opposite. Maybe they all need to make the same all you did! I bet you some shops are relaxing rules due to the lower budget nature of our modern shoots. I've struggled with this problem for years and have always used smaller trucks as a consequence. Thanks for the info and maybe you can send me over the company you talked with so I can throw it in my line producers face. :)

You can't get honey wagons or 5 ton + grip/lighting trucks. Without union drivers, you can't even rent them. We're skirting around the carpenters union by simply hiring friends.

I just pulled the movement out of my camera and studied it's design. It uses an offset cam design, where a shaft fits through two rotating cam's. Those cam's profile decide how much the pull down mechanism moves. I tried to get the assembly apart, so I could measure the cam's profile and maybe do some math, however even after taking out all the screws that hold it in place, it wouldn't budge. Since it's a working camera, I didn't want to put too much force on it, so I gave up and put it back together again after around 4hrs of studying and analysis. Good news is, I found someone online who did it with their superamerica, so it's possible. I e-mailed them and hopefully they'll get back to me. In any event, it was fun exploring and the more hands-on I get with this camera, the more knowledge I gain.

Nice! I gotta talk to him soon about my project. :)