Tyler Purcell

Yea, I think camera body prices will dwindle to practically nothing. Lenses on the other hand, they are holding steady due to digital cinema cameras ability to use a wider range of mounting types then their film-based predecessors. We have many more years of "film" production in front of us, both professional and boutique/student/experimental. As a consequence, I think rental houses aren't quite ready to completely abandon film quite yet. We've seen 16mm be tossed into the gutter, but 35mm will be a while, mainly because there isn't a perfect substitute. Arri's new 65mm Alexa maybe the first step towards a "film-less" world and if they can match this new format with a 6k projector, all bets are off. Three things will kill off film; - IMAX dumping film entirely - 6k - 8k digital projectors - Increased expense on purchasing and processing film Once that happens, film camera bodies will be worth nothing.

If you watch the video above, you can see my lens comparison test which explains in greater detail visually what to expect. Personally, the 8mm lens I've got is plenty wide enough.

My sentiments exactly… ;)

That new projector is pretty amazing. I felt the same way you did about the projection, it was rock solid. I've seen A LOT of IMAX films with the older gen 1 projectors and they're never that solid. No flicker, no registration issues, during the credits I held my head really steady, took a breath and stared at the text to see if there was any shaking and it was just flat-out perfect, looked like a digital presentation. Had to turn around to make sure they hadn't turned on the digital projector just for the credits… Imax theaters use to run the credits with a slide presentation years ago. The particular theater I saw it in, was film-only… so that was exciting in of itself. ;)

I think the critical point for me is finding reasons to visit the cinema. I'm a filmmaker and like most filmmakers, I enjoy movies and likewise have invested in a high quality presentation method. I have a better stereo then most theaters, a 6 foot wide screen and a very nice high-lumen DLP cinema projector. With modern distribution of movies on BluRay and HD streaming/downloads, the quality difference between home and theater is narrower then ever. The sad part is, as prices rise on theater tickets, the point of seeing a movie in the theater has all but disappeared for me. Film is important because it's something different, it's a reason visit the theater for an experience you can't get at home. Most people go to the movies because they're bored and have nothing else to do. That's why the biggest demographic of movie watchers is still females under 18. Theaters are no longer something special, they are simply babysitters. Filmmakers and cinemas target that demographic like used car salesmen and it's disgusting. The switch to digital projection wasn't about increasing the quality, it was all about saving money and thats the sick part. They raised ticket prices in order to help cover the cost of upgrading and the theater goer's aren't really getting anything better. I have yet to visit a normal theater and see excellent digital projection. Only at specialty theaters with 4k projection, have I ever been "impressed" with digital cinema, but dismayed with the $20 ticket price. Heck even at the Cinerama dome, their digital projection lens, doesn't take the contour of the screen into account. Yet the ol' 70mm projector is flat-out perfect. Not like 18 year olds go to the Cinerama dome, but seriously? Nobody else even notices how horrible the digital image looks there? When the music industry went digital, everyone was jumping up and down for joy. However, what they produced sounded like poop. Digital audio for all its amazing dynamic range, has no smoothness, it sounds harsh. Engineers fought for years to develop solutions to this, some even resorting to mastering on 1/4" half-track tube preamp 30ips reel to reel tape decks. Over the years, more and more studio's brought in tube gear and some even record directly to tape. Using the tape as a "master" and then doing the mix-down in pro tools, using outboard tube based effects. Tubes, yes.. tubes the technology we left behind in the 60's, have made a HUGE comeback in the music industry, especially with home stereo's. With 600 gram deep-groove LP's, new albums are being directly pressed off masters and they are the premiere delivery format for music lovers everywhere. Gone are the days of 16 bit 44.1hz CD's, we've reverted back to the early 20th century and amazingly enough, it is absolutely amazing what these new 600 gram LP's sound like. Motion picture film has a very similar story. Everyone is hyped up about digital cinema, about theoretically saving money and advancing technology. Digital cinema has given hope to young filmmakers like myself, who can't afford to shoot film anymore. It's also revolutionized the way we think about post production and distribution. However, like the music industry, with all the advancement in technology, there is a perceived loss in smoothness. Images are more unnaturally controlled in post production in order to make them look half decent. Sometimes cinematographers are forced to shoot images in a very flat way, so they can be built in post production, rather then in-camera. What do our modern movies gain in quality by having artists roto and color each individual person in a scene with motion tracking? Does this make the films any better or is the digital intermediate process we use today, just another way for people to make money off technology. Now that you can do everything digitally, you can "george lucas" anything you want. You don't need great actors anymore, you just need a digital artist to throw two takes together into one shot. You don't need to build that set, just shoot everything on a green screen and build the set digitally. Heck, lets have the camera fly all over the place like a bird to bring you onto our digital set because, why not? Filmmakers have lost all sense of reality in the digital world. Now that they have the tools to manipulate all, most filmmakers choose to do that instead of focusing on good stories and good actors. Where did all the truly great films go? When was the last time you saw a movie and said; "thats one of the best movies ever made". It just doesn't happen anymore and the reason is two fold. One of which is financing is harder and harder to get, so financiers aren't willing to take much risk. The other is filmmakers playing with technology instead of telling a good story. Films like Gravity, which was absolutely stunning technically, was a waste of time in the story department. Just look at the Golden Globe nods this year, not one of them is a truly great film. Worst part is, filmmakers who go out of their way to make good cinematic films like Interstellar, Birdman and Grand Budapest Hotel, they get will never get the recognition deserved. It's not about cinema anymore, it's about money and unfortunately, cinemas will go out of business unless something changes. There needs to be a cinema revolution. There needs to be a reason for people like myself to visit the theater. Perhaps Arri's new 65mm 6k cinema camera and a future 6k projection system is the answer. Though part of me hopes like the music industry, studio's wake up and realize that good stories should using analog equipment and distributed in a way which makes them special. I'm not taking 35mm, forget 35mm even exists. I'm talking 65mm 5 perf principal photography and distribution with 70mm/15 blow-up's. Take what Interstellar did and bring it up one notch. Quentin Tarantino may just be the first to prove that it's worth while and here is hoping if he does it, others won't be far behind. I do believe 35mm principal photography will be phased out in the next 10 years, but due to IMAX, 65mm will be the last "gold standard" of cinema and perhaps the longest lasting one. I don't think digital cinema will ever elapse the quality of 70/15 and even the new IMAX 8k laser projectors, are still pretty far away. Sorry for the rant.

Well, saw Interstellar in IMAX tonight, on film of course. The theater had a blown amp or speakers, so when the big hits came in the music, it got distorted a few times. Very disappointing because it ruined the experience for those who hadn't seen it. Goes to show how GOOD the sound system is over at the Cinerama Dome. Kinda pissed I didn't see it at the Chinese theater when I had the chance. The IMAX presentation made no sense. They picked the most random shots to make 70/15, thus maybe an insight to what I already knew all along… the film was cut down substantially from the original cut. Towards the end, there were random single shots in 70/15 mixed in with long sequences of 35mm anamorphic stuff. I first thought they were doing exteriors in 70/15, but then they'd do ONE interior shot, then switch back to 35mm, then maybe another two shots in 70/15 and then back again. It went back and forward non-stop throughout the film. The black bars weren't the distracting part, it was the quality difference. The 70/15 stuff was amazing, looked like digital due to the excellent registration the projectors have. I was disappointed in the experience for many reasons, not just the sound system. Most of my disappointment came from Nolan's very vision of shooting mixed format. Now that I've seen it mixed format, I realize it was a complete waste of time. Shoot the whole thing in 70 or don't bother projecting it on Imax screens. What he should have done is shoot the bulk of the film in 70/5 perf 2.20:1. Then when they hit space, switch to 70/15. This way the final aspect ratio for normal theatrical distribution would be 2.20:1 which means less cutting of the top and the bottoms, plus the aspect ratio change in the theaters in IMAX would be a lot less. Heck IMAX digital screens with their 1.9:1 aspect ratio, you may not even see the difference in the crop. 2.35:1 and then 1.47:1 is a huge difference. Being coherent in the aspect ratio change, using it to broaden "space" should have been what he used it for. Honestly, the best experience has been the Cinerama Dome in 70/5, what an experience that was. If it was playing tomorrow at the dome, I would see it again, just to get that experience one more time. The concept of pulling that format out of mothballs for this film was genius by Nolan and I truly think more filmmakers should contemplate using it for acquisition. The cost isn't much more then 35mm on a big budget film, so why not?

How about all that behind the scenes material from Full Metal Jacket? That looked awesome! Is there a doc including any of that material?

Whoops! HAHAHA Auto spelling doesn't work well. Damn Digital nonsense! LOL :)

For those of us in So Cal, the Los Angeles Science Museum just scored a 70/15 print of Interstellar, presumedly from one of the other threatens who stopped projecting it. For two weeks only, they will be showing Interstellar @ 7:00! If you haven't seen the film yet, now is the opportunity!

I've just never seen that before on film. Besides, the dynamic range of film would negate the white clipping you see on digital shots at night. So even if the motion looked similar, it wouldn't throw the audience for a loop. Where on the digital shots which have white clipping and motion blur, it really pulls the audience away from the film due to the change in look. Just watch the last few Micheal Mann films. I can't watch his movies anymore, they look like a television show shot in the 90's @ 29.97 frame rate. If you watch some of Roger Deakin's films with the Alexa, you'll never see the problem. Even in the worst/darkest stuff like the night stuff at the end of Skyfall, it was still very filmic. Forget about guys like Peter Jackson and his 48fps playback of the Hobbit! EWWW!!!! :(

Yea, the grain structure was for sure there, I was happy it originated on film, you could tell. I'm so sick and tired of filmmakers who don't notice the horrible motion blur and clipping whites on digital cinema cameras. Just watched Birdman and the nighttime stuff on the roof of the theater was horrible looking. Looked like a highdef handycam and I was shocked to find out it was shot with the Alexa. I thought they had fixed the motion blur issues, but apparently not. :(

I enjoyed the film very much and thought the shooting worked well for the piece. I was dismayed in the digital projection at a local cineplex here in L.A. It had aliasing issues, so every time there was a straight line in the film, it would be jagged. :(

I rather enjoyed Predestination, saw it on home video because it's not hitting the US theatrical market for sometime. The filmmakers took a few risks with the storytelling method which totally paid off. Even though it's a very dialog driven film and it can be campy/predictable at times, it was clever. Well shot, well directed and perhaps the screenplay needed a tweak or two, but it's still entertaining no matter what. Ohh and Alexia Panavision, usually equates to Anamorphic.

WOW ya learn something new every day! I wouldn't dream of pre-exposing film to get less contrast, but I understand the technique, just never used that terminology before. Perhaps that's why it didn't look like a proper digital finishing, whoever did the finishing, didn't want to disrupt that look. I use the phrase DCP because it refers to a cinema-grade digital master file, usually made for archiving when it comes to older films. Transfers which are made specifically for DCP, are usually much higher quality then those made specifically for REC709 video release due to the stringent guidelines. As a consequences, DCP transfers always stand out compared to their telecine counterparts.

I just watched a BluRay copy of The Long Goodbye tonight. Besides loving the film and Vilmos Zsigmond of course, I also wasn't impressed what so ever with the transfer. It did not get a DCP treatment at all, looked like a one-light transfer of perhaps the internegative (no black dots, just white ones). It was for sure HD, the grain was there. I don't know much about the production, but it was clear the intention was low contrast and high filtration. Many shots were as described above "dreamy" which was quite an interesting look. The film reminded me a lot of what PT Anderson was trying to get out of Inherent Vice. There is a constant state of "whatever man" and the cinematography backed up that sentiment perfectly. The almost constant use of zoom lenses was quite an interesting choice and I'm not sure if it was Altman's or Zsigmond's, but perhaps it was about getting better coverage within a short shoot schedule. BTW.. I didn't see any flickering/flashing effect on the BluRay.

Yea it's belts, there isn't anything else it could be.

Happy Holidays!!! Lets make 2015 even better! :D

Yesterday, "The Interview" was put on youtube for pay per view streaming and today, you can watch it free on many sites. Ohh well… at least the film is "out there" rather then sitting on a shelf.

It doesn't "record" any "image" onto film. It's only a high resolution controllable light source which illuminates the proper areas for exposure. Film recorders like the Arrilaser are a one-pass system which exposes a complete image onto the film.

That's the old way, lenses, multiple gates, multiple negatives all lined up, etc… It's a horrible way of building a "composite". Here is a really rough draft of my white paper. It's been an idea I've thought about for years, but never quite had the time to think through. This whole 70mm projection buzz has got me thinking more and more about how to integrate modern with old technologies. If LP's can make a huge come back and they don't really sound that great… then I foresee things like 70mm theatrical film becoming "a thing" in the future. http://tye1138.com/stuff/filmcompositing.rtf

With modern technologies, it would be very easy to make photochemical composites very good. Back in the day, multiple layers of film were shot using a single, non-adjustable lamp source and photographed onto a single stock. Some compositing was done in 8 perf horizontal 35mm vista vision. David pointed out all the issues with this technology and why digital compositing has been a god send for special effects films. In my point of view, it's ruined films because filmmakers are no longer bound to making realistic vision's. I'm actually writing a white paper on a new optical printer which solves a lot of these issues. Thinking outside of the box, using modern technology, there are many solutions to resolve simple compositing. I will post something when I'm done with it and hopefully it will garnish some attention and maybe someone will try to build it. Wish I had the money, but unfortunately developing it would cost quite a bit and there really isn't a serious market at this point since everyone is so infatuated with digital technologies. However, the net result would be a compositing and color correction pin-registered machine for multiple formats (2, 3, 4 perf 35mm/4, 8, 15 perf 65mm) which would be computer controlled via a plugin within DaVinci for coloring and Shake for compositing. Allowing artists to do their work digitally in a restricted environment with translation back to the machine which then does the work photochemically.

Yea, I agree with Bill, the B&W stuff looked great, the other outdoor stuff was problematic. I have a feeling you didn't use an 85 filter, which is a prerequisite when shooting tungsten stock outdoors.

I dig it… I've been trying to do something like that down here in LA for a while.

I've had nothing but problems auto synching audio even with plural eyes because the camera mic's pickup a lot of background noise in larger scenes and actors are most of the time further away from the camera then this particular demo. I just had to sync a whole show by hand because of this problem, even with the gain kicked up all the way on the camera mic's, the camera's were too far away. It's a nice function that Adobe included for sure, great for simple stuff.

There are 35mm prints roving around… but most cinema's don't have projectors anymore.