Tyler Purcell

Ultra 16 is not really a "workable" format. It's kind of a gimmick. The concept is to use the area between the perfs, but that area isn't protected by the camera. So it can be damaged very easily by the camera. Also, because the lens isn't centered for Ultra, you will be getting unusual vignetting related to the Ultra format, you would not get on standard 16 as most standard 16mm lenses which are wider than 12mm will just barely cover the 16mm format. So if you use long lenses, it maybe ok, but the moment you go to zooms OR shorter than 12mm, then you're in trouble with any wider aspect ratio format using standard 16mm lenses. So yes, Ultra is a no-go for many reasons.

The CRT recorders can do upwards of 8k onto 15p. The problem is the length of time it takes to record each frame is exponentially more when you do 8k vs 4k. So most of the time, they just record out 4k. I don't remember how many recorders IMAX has, but it's quite a few. The problem is; once the CRT tubes are all used up, that's the end of that. There is currently no replacement for recording high res images to large format which even gets close to competing with the CRT models. They've tried new tubes, but they don't work as well. It's a real problem in the recording world honestly. I'm hoping the density of OLED gets better over time and switching over to an OLED solution would work well. Right now the only alternatives are LCD and they just don't have the dynamic range of the CRT's OR OLED displays. One more thing to note, very few films are "finished' in 8k anyway. So even if you COULD do an 8k record, who is actually doing the entire finishing process in 8k? Maybe Nolan? But anyone else? Doubtful.

If serviced. If not, it's pretty diabolically not steady.

No comparison, a properly serviced SR3 will kill any of those Bolex/Beaulieu cameras. Heck, it'll kill a properly serviced Aaton as well!

Don't know, they're so rare, I've never even seen one in person. I assume they use the same movement as the CP16, but that's just an assumption. A properly serviced SR without a worn gate, is pretty stable. The SR3 gates drop right into the SR1 and 2, which practically eliminate any gate issues. The biggest problem with the older SR's is Super 16 as most had botched conversions. So don't think about S16 with an SR1 and 2. I've had mediocre luck with SR1 and 2 stability FYI. SR3's are way better stability wise, they don't use the same bering for the registration pin, which is a problem on the older SR1 and SR2 cameras. I wouldn't trust YouTube for anything. Gate weave can be introduced by the scanner, as much as by the camera. So take that with a grain of salt. In terms of the "smaller" cameras. My personal Bolex EBM was "ok" registration wise. It uses side rail springs to hold it tight in the gate. I find the Beaulieu 2016 to be better because it doesn't slide the pulldown claw against the film like the Bolex does. So the film is held in place more consistently. The Beaulieu seems to be completely bulletproof, I bet it would run a million feet of film before it showed a single sign of wear. Plus the one thing I like about the 2016 is that its electronics are a bit more modern, so they're easier to work on. The Bolex EBM/EL electronics can be a mess and they don't offer any benefits. No Crystal, no Meter, No super high speed, none of that. In terms of the commercial cameras, properly serviced SR3 and 416 are the best stability wise. I'd put the Aaton cameras second, but they don't really compare as they don't have registration pins. For stability, SR3 and 416. But honestly, I post stabilize everything anyway, there isn't a single shot I won't do that to because frankly, I like smooth camera work. If you want jittery camera work, nobody will notice the slight wobble in the film frame. The CP16 is ok stability wise, closer to the 2016 Beaulieu than the Aaton's. I assume the GSMO is the same. The M/S series Arri cameras are decent registration wise. The Arri 16BL can be good, if you have it tuned, but man they can be a nightmare. The worst camera ever is the K3. But that's another story for another time. LOL

Unlike digital cameras, film cameras all look the same as the lens and stock are what creates the image, not the camera body itself. The GSMO is also a MUCH harder to find camera. You'd be lucky to find 1 a year on eBay and most people who sell them, want a pretty penny due to their rarity. The other issue with the GSMO is; less parts and less expertise.

16mm? I wouldn't push it unless you want a pile of grain. It's already borderline too grainy for me. I shoot most of my tungsten stuff in 200T unless I need for some reason, to have the extra speed due to lack of lighting control. One stop push is only 3/4 of a stop anyway, so we're not talking MUCH difference. With fast lenses, you can get away with quite a bit as well. 7222 is pretty much mud in the blacks anyway, you really have to light it well to get anything. I would over light it if possible. Unlike color film, which has a more defined look due to it being color, with negative, there is no detail in the blacks unless there is SOME light to augment. I shoot 7222 with a 4 stop range maximum (2 stops under, 2 stops over). This means, everything in frame, should be within the 4 stops if you really want it to be exposed properly. With 500T, you can get away with 3 stops under and 3 stops over (6 stops total) which is very nice. Much under 3 stops under and you're getting into "mud" territory. You don't change that with a push. You're still in that 6 stop range and all you really gain is more grain honestly. The down side is that you create more contrast. Which can be a detractor if you're looking for details in the blacks. The only added detail you'll get is just off middle gray, so maybe 2 stops under? You may see slightly more detail there, but anything that's under that, there won't be any difference. Turning 500T black and white digitally in post, is a far better option than using 7222. It's what I have done for years on my films if I need a high speed stock. Plus the color stocks, allow you to adjust which colors you're representing in post, which means in really dark moments, you can accentuate certain aspects directly when you turn it black and white, which kinda gives you a tool which doesn't exist in the black and white negative world.

I have owned them before, shot with them a lot and I'm one of the only guys in Los Angeles who services them. I think for a few grand, they're a killer deal. The kind of price they're asking, is insanity. I get it tho, they want to amortize the cost of integrating a HD tap and re-building it. But, you can get something a lot better for that kind of price if you ignore the Super 16 "tax" you're paying. A normal CP without super 16 is more like $3k with a lens. I do like CP16R's, that's why I service them. I have fond memories of using them as a teenager. I just don't know if you would get any gigs with one, or shoot anything professional. Some people have tried, but they're mostly ultra low horror films and stuff, where the quality is irrelevant. For sure a working SR would give you far crisper images. You don't want one that hasn't been serviced in years. They're a mighty pain in the ass to fix when they're ceased or when the internal batteries have failed and damaged the main board.

As Robin said above, currently there is no Super 16 camera that fits your specs, which is anywhere near $4k. Currently the market is very hot still. People are getting top dollars for cameras a decade ago, wouldn't sell for $3k. I do feel this will change over time, so maybe the time you're ready to buy (1-2 years) things will be different? I highly doubt you'd ever get anyone to sell a good (Arri/Aaton) Super 16 camera for anywhere near $4k however. So you need to look at options to get ya started. Another very important aspect to "super 16" are the lenses. Standard 16mm lenses today, are pretty inexpensive. Super 16mm lenses are kinda overly priced in a lot of ways. Standard 16mm is a MUCH cheaper option, in fact I recently started shooting a mix of standard and super on my films and NOBODY can tell the difference. Which begs the question, do you NEED super 16? Sadly, there isn't a camera that's really self service. Every one of them needs a tune up by a tech and that's becoming harder and harder to find these days for the non-standard (Arri/Aaton/Bolex/Beaulieu) cameras. I specialize in Aaton cameras and can fix "some" problems with other cameras, but not all problems. Parts are nearly impossible to get for everything outside of the latest and greatest Arri 416. So you've gotta treat whatever you get with kid gloves. So what to buy? It's down to the deal you get honestly. If you can find a recently re-build Arri SR standard 16mm with a basic Zeiss 11-110 B mount Zoom, that's a really good starter kit. Maybe send it out to get a tap installed. Get a V mount battery adaptor. Just start shooting with it. Don't worry about the tiny bit extra real estate on the image, focus on shooting film. Bigger and better cameras always exist, but if you do bigger shows, just rent since you're in Los Angeles. I'd stay away from the CP's, Eclairs and older Aaton LTR's. Where each of them have their "good" things, none of them are really where you want to begin ya know? Some LTR's which have been converted to PL and have the base/motor upgraded, can be decent cameras. But people charge WAY too much for them. For a few grand it's worth the risk, but not for the kind of pricing I'm seeing. Aaton only had Aaton mount at the time, which requires adaptors for Arri B and then you're stuck to finding Super 16 Arri B lenses, which can be tricky, not impossible, but MORE tricky than just focusing on standard lenses. Another camera to put on your $4k budget radar is the Beaulieu 2016. Super hard to come by, only see them every two or three years for sale, but when you do, they're pretty good. Standard 16mm, but C mount lens, crystal speeds, and a great beginner camera with integrated light meter and up to 80fps over cranking. I use my 2016 A LOT. In fact, my main camera case contains a 6008 Super 8 and 2016 16mm, that's what I bring everywhere. Lots of different lenses, lots of cool bits and bobs, but generally speaking, I don't bring out my Aaton kit for anything but professional jobs. I think it's just too much of a risk when it's so hard to get parts and costly to get things fixed when broken. At least cameras like the Bolex EL and Beaulieu 2016, aren't horribly expensive as standard 16mm cameras. It's not the end of the world to invest in a 100ft daylight spool camera unless you're recording sync sound, which a lot of people doing 16mm projects, aren't. If your job is going to be narratives only, well... my advice earlier about the Arri SR, maybe the best way to go. Sadly tho, at the moment, all of the cameras you seek specification wise, are WAY out of your budget and again, I fret that won't change anytime soon.

I personally don't much care for many of the original BluRay transfers. Many were done in the late 90's and early 2000's for the DVD releases, many on telecine machines like the Spirit. I noticed over the years, the elements they used were subpar, internegatives sometimes instead of IP's or original camera negative. I use to work for a company who did scans for distribution and we always got internegatives from the studio's. They never once sent us the original cut negative and honestly, IP's were very rare. I see Internegatives used a lot for BluRay's. Restoration releases and UHD discs can be a lot better. But like everything, even they are hit or miss. I've seen a few which are stellar and a few which are pretty poor. I'd rather have a 1080p version of the original negative than have an upscaled version of an old transfer. For movies I care about, I generally want the criterion or some restoration version. There are some great brands doing 3rd party restorations like Criterion today and the releases are wonderful. But yes, it does depend on the quality of the elements. It also depends on if the director or DP was present during the coloring session. I have seen some very odd coloring choices, partially on T2 UHD, which make no sense and don't match anything of the film prints or prior video releases. It's a shame when people muck up the restorations, really pitiful since it's not difficult to nail. Just watch a print at Quentin's theater lol ?

We have 5 more films shot on 16mm in the works. We are actually in Colorado right now wrapping up our winter film. That should be released by spring. We have 2 more releasing this year, though that's contingent on how our summer and fall shoots go. Then we have 2 more releasing for 2025, which is the anniversary of one of the greatest remaining single class of working steam engine in the United States. So we'll have one film about those engines and one film about an abandoned railroad, which will take a long time to produce, but we started production last year and will continue through this year. We're scanning an archive of that railroad when it was originally made and we're going to be able to use the archive in our film. I'm very excited. It'll be a multi-year project but it's going to be made like a 1960's documentary 4x3 aspect ratio, mono soundtrack done by local Colorado musicians, it'll be a very nice piece. We will be fundraising soon, we need to really stop spending our money! lol ?

I wouldn't buy one. No.

Usually that's the beginning of a bad board. Can you email me a video info@narrowgaugefilms.com

Na, it was the camera/film in this sample which was the problem. We scan professionally, with a good machine. We haven't had a lick of problems with the new stock from Kodak. So it musta been a batch of bad cartridges. The last few shoots with the same camera were fine. Kodak did say they had some issues with the cartridges and we found issues with even the 16mm stock related to micro scratches thanks to them changing vendors on something related to the film. Kodak gave us a refund but it was really disappointing.

We were offered one for $20k, but it had the old camera on it and Lasergraphics wouldn't upgrade it to the newest one. Kinda sucks, but tis what it is. I think we made the right decision for the money. It looks fine: Oh no, if you want all the options, it's nearly $200k now.

We use alcohol to get rid of the initial junk. Then soak in soap and water. Rinse. Let dry and they're good as new. We have 4 sets and we'll just trade them out for each roll of print film we run through. For negative, they never get dirty. Certain types of tapes do work well. We found this generic gaf tape to do a killer job getting rid of issues and leaving no residue behind. We don't use that trick for negative, but for print film which leaves a lot of debris behind and where the tackiness of the PTR's matters most, that's what we normally do between rolls. We will fully clean at the end of a scanning day. PTR's are generic, they are available in many different configurations and most scanners use similar types. In fact, I think the ones on the Film Fabriek are the same as they are on the Spirit. They do wear out fast tho. If you don't wash them regularly, they start to chip and fall apart due to getting dry. Any real scanner will need them yes.

Most of the time we do a one pass, but if something doesn't look right, we will time it. I'd say in a given 30 - 40 minute already timed print, we may do two dozen color fixes on top of the over-all base setting for color. With home movies, it's far more tricky. We have a middleman who helps get us work. We do not advertise, it's nearly entirely through them or word of mouth. It all comes in waves. December we worked through the holidays and into January to meet a huge deadline for 4 jobs. But the 3 weeks after, we've been dead. We now have some huge projects in route, so it comes and goes.

Sure but the LG is 197k OTD The BMD is $35K OTD Zero comparison between them. If you can afford an LG, you obviously won't need a BMD for anything. That's fine, we don't own one. A little lever on the side of the scanner to flip the magnifier around, is all you need to do on the BMD scanner in order to make it full frame 16 vs full frame 35mm. So put that on a tray, allow the user to do that work and you're good to go. I see it as a very basic re-design. If they still made that ScanStation personal and if it had the 5.2k imager, I'd probably already have one. The entire point is to have Super 8, 16mm and 35mm compatibility in a single machine. Obviously with a fixed lens, this becomes challenging. True, but I've tested it and it does work well WHEN It works. I was able to squeeze off two rolls of my first film we scanned with the Cintel II in HDR and I was very impressed. The issues with the imager went away and the details in the blacks expanded quite a bit. It's by far one of the best 35mm scans I've ever done. The ScanStation can do it better, but again, 197K. Let's be real, BMD doesn't understand market. Just look at their cameras. Every one is a total joke, as if their engineers have never seen a camera before. The Cintel II mechanically is a great scanner. The interface is awesome. The new lamp source works great. The PTR capstan drive also works flawlessly. They fixed everything it had wrong with it, but the bloody imager. The ONLY THING they need to do is swap that imager AND put the magnifying element on a try that can be easily flipped around. Problem solved. The problem they have, is re-aligning the perf detect system. But I bet with modern programming, they can do that no problem. I'm not holding my breath tho lol

Can be a lot of things. For me, it's the expectations of the studio. Everyone forgets the bombs ya know? You're on a ship for a month or two and that's when you get paid to work. You wanna be back on that ship and if that captain has success, then it's easy to rejoin the ship. However, if the captain doesn't have success, if the product is shelved, or not properly distributed, or maybe just a poor product for whatever reason, all of that effort may be for nothing. In this part of the industry, where we're making lower budget content, yea it does vary a lot. Unlike the studio world, where the Directors generally work with the same DP's a lot and those DP's work with the same crews, you don't get that in the indy world at all. So unless ya got a big success under your belt financially and the director is ready to shoot their next project right away (maybe a commercial or industrial film), the crew kinda get busy on other things and disperses. You'll find a lot of top directors do shoot other content, which keeps their crews pretty busy. Plus, big shows have a lot of prep time, so outside of day players, you may get a few months of prep and few months of post tacked onto your already lengthy production. The indy world is nearly entire day playing by contrast, which means, you're a straight freelancer. Which is NOT the case in the upper echelons. So the problems are; - Consistency of work hours (how many good paying jobs you get per year) - Consistency of other crew (if you do a great job, is everyone else also working at 100%?) - Consistency of finished product (are you working a project that will go nowhere?) It's also very cutthroat. There are thousands of DP's in the US with better equipment, more connections, extreme talent and ready to jump on a plane AT THEIR COST, to be involved in even the smallest project. Sometimes I regret, not doing the same thing. Sight side note; what happened to me, happens to a lot of young filmmakers. They move to an industry town like Los Angeles and they immediately get work on shows. That's exactly what happened to me, shot two features back to back upon arrival. Both direct to video, but I was 25 years old working in Hollywood, it was awesome. Then some politics happened and my entire team wound up getting fired from our 2nd film. I was devastated. Suddenly the money dried up and I was forced to make a decision; work like a dog for 16hrs/day for practically minimum wage to pay bills or get a real job. I took the latter, which forced me out of the industry for just over a decade. I got lucky tho, met some industry people during that time, who kept me busy creatively and those freelance gigs, led me to bigger ones and eventually I was a full time freelancer. It was stressful and I did blow a lot of cash on shit I probably shouldn't have, but I was young and wanted to enjoy my youth.

It's a tricky question and a touchy subject for everyone really. Nepotism reigns supreme and I think you'll find, that people who really succeed in this industry, have excellent connections and can back up their work, time and time again. Nearly everyone struggles to find their position in the industry, even incredibly talented DP's. What has always scared me about this industry is how fickle it is. One day you're getting a decent sized feature film and the next, you're eating Raman noodles wondering how you're going to pay rent. It's all who you know, it's all about the people you work with and their career paths. The lucky ones, find this very early on. Many start out as 3rd camera assistant right out of school, find a decent team to work with and then simply go from project to project, going up the ranks until they become DP. I've had this happen to me once in my life, it was a 6 year whirlwind journey where I found the right team and basically did all of their work. It was non-stop, incredible amount of effort. We did features, commercials and industrial films. It was a blast, until our results weren't good enough and the team split up. For a few months after the last show wrapped, we stayed in contact, but we never worked together. I got a full time job to pay bills outside of the industry and many of them moved away from Los Angeles. It's that fickle nature, I see so many really talented people struggle with. So what's the answer? Nobody prevents you from being creative. Getting a good non-industry job that you can take time off from, I think is the key. Something that doesn't suck up all your time and will give you the freedom to pursue the creative work. Being around other people in the industry does help light that fire, I always find it does for me. Whenever I'm away from industry friends, I'm kinda lazy about my own work. But man, get us together in group and I'm ready to start writing again. There are so many outlets to show your skills today. Nothing stops you from creating great content and demonstrating your talent. Nothing stops you from meeting new people and creating those connections. You can do all of this without too much money. I think making an image for yourself on the internet, really helps a lot. Don't do what everyone else is doing, do something different. Find your unique voice and stick to it. I've found solace in running my own industry adjacent businesses, where I get to talk to and meet some top people on a regular basis. It's always fun to hear their stories and realize; maybe that lifestyle isn't for me. Sure it would be fun to do a 100M feature once, but I don't think I could deal with the stress of not knowing where my next paycheck was coming from ever again. The older you get, the less you wanna even contemplate that. Where I absolutely love making films, nothing prevents me from doing just that and I have a whole series of short films I've been shooting over the last few years, which keeps me busy and presenting new work to the internet, friends, family and fans. That is enough creativity to keep me happy and I think you'd find, making your own stuff, will satisfy the most difficult to reach itch. No isn't an answer when you're in charge and all you need is a decent gig to help fund your projects and you're off to the races.

Funny enough, the last THREE super 8 jobs I got were all prints. I guess in the 60's and 70's, companies offered a service where they'd make a print of your camera originals, so you didn't damage them? I can't fathom any reason why these prints would exist, but I've been seeing them more and more. Basically they're 400ft unspliced dupes of assembled camera originals. Man they look horrible tho, huge contrast and lots of issues with highlight blooming and lack of blacks. However, some people only have these, the source is long gone. I was shocked to see them interspersed with raw Ektachrome and Kodachrome rolls on our last 3 jobs. The clients mostly don't know because they're transferring their families home movies and they don't know how they got them. One of the rolls was a wedding, so the filmmaker who did the job, made an edit and print. But the other ones, they were so random. Maybe the idea was to stripe magnetic soundtrack and record music or something? None of them had soundtrack. I must have done 30+ reels of them as well, very strange. But yea, we scan everything in 4k, but our clients rarely ask for the 4k scans. The archives charge per gig to store and when they realize the 4k pro res files are huge, they balk and simply want the 2k. I think many of them don't really care about the quality of the finished work as long as they get it scanned and delivered.

A 5.2k imager and movable optical element, would allow full frame scans at 5.2k of all the major formats. Plus, capturing in a raw format in HDR, with direct access to resolve, is killer. I love the workflow of the BMD scanner. I think it works great. The only issue is the imager. I don't know the answer. BMD does have a capstan based system today, so they probably have less of an issue than in the past.

The process is always different. Not two rolls are the same. Not to clients are the same. There are really 3 types of clients we deal with when it comes to print film; - Consumers who want to watch their films digitally. - Archives who want to get a quick scan so they can understand the value of their assets. - Consumers and Archives who want to never go back to the film again and are most likely throwing the elements away. Obviously the first two are a quick scan to get done fast. The latter, is what we really do customized workflows for. We do shoot video of some things, but most of the time we're so busy, we never get a chance.

A "good" scanner is more important. I think they could easily dominate the sub $50k market with a scanner that has a movable lens system like the Scan Station. Even if they did a basic update to the imager, like the 5.2k IMX imager, that thing is really good. I just think they have to re-write everything for it to work and the budget is low. AEO Light works great. The FF audio reader is fine, the scanner doesn't run at a constant speed. I've bitched to them about this, but unfortunately, there isn't anything they can do. There is no crystal lock or anything of that nature. So it's kind of a re-design for them, with a much bigger capstan system that has better grip on the film and a crystal feedback motor design. The motor varies by around one tenth of an FPS all the time, so you get WOW and flutter in all the audio. You may not notice it, but I do. Drives me nuts. Every client is different. However, we've found that nobody actually wants or cares for 4k Super 8 or 16mm PRINT transfers. Most people request 2k because archives don't want to store all that excess data. Plus, 16mm prints never get close to 2k anyway. So over scanning in 4k and then cropping to 2048x1400 or so (depending on the frame size) is what we normally do. Believe it or not, you aren't losing much res by doing this. The actual image area is still around 2.8k or so. We generally TRY to scan with perforations visible on those prints, so if there are any jumps or issues caused by splices, we can easily just automatically fix them in post. We need the perforation in frame to do that. So keeping the soundtrack in frame, is very easy. Our workflow using Resolve is very fast. It's practically real time and allows us to walk away and work on something else whilst it's chewing. AEO delivers us perfect audio and then we simply marry it to the picture. It's not perfect, but I'd say 80% of the time it lines up fine. I think audio is one of the biggest issues with lower end scanners. It's why the Blackmagic is so great, because it has excellent audio and can scan 2k prints in real time. It's just, our scanner allows for instant real time cleanup of the image in the form of a wet gate. This is really and critically important for digital post. Starting with a really good clean image, is the best way to insure you won't have major problems in digital cleanup. The last job we did, was insane. Extremely tight deadline, every roll was falling apart and needed work just to scan, it was bad. However, we worked around the clock and got it done. A testament to our abilities and the client was so happy and impressed, they're probably going to give us the rest of their library work.

The big thing for me at least, is that 19' has much more dynamic range below middle gray than any of the other stocks. Honestly, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I do think 19' does have the most dynamic range of any color negative Kodak makes today. I find myself able to push 19' much further in situations where lighting isn't optimal and still able to create detail. The finer grain stocks, just don't have that same ability unfortunately. Sure, they'll retain highlights very well, but below middle gray, they just seem to be missing a few stops of latitude. They "fall off the cliff" so to speak after 3 stops under middle gray. You can almost get 5 stops of latitude below middle gray out of 19'. The other stocks appear to have all their latitude in the highlights, offering 8 or more stops above middle gray. The only down side to 19' is that it's not great in daylight. The grain does tend to pop more and it's nice to use a finer grain daylight stock as much as possible whenever you can. I prefer 50D 7203 for broad daylight. I think the tighter grain just looks nicer, plus without filtration, it puts you at about F11 in broad daylight. With 250D, you're always having to filter for broad daylight. I carry a .9 and 1.2 around with me everywhere and sometimes need to use both with 250D, just to get in the stop range of the lens. So the added sensitivity, seems to be kinda wasted. 250D is great in sunset scenes, or shaded areas where you don't have any direct sunlight and are dealing with shadow. I used it quite a bit on my last shoot, where I had to deal with some extended sunrise scenes. (The beginning of this demo below)