Ari Michael Leeds

There is an incorrect assumption here that I refuse to work with anything but film. That is not the case. They were shooting video for the Twilight Zone in the '60s, over fifty years ago now, although it did look so bad then there would have been a point in refusing, say, as a DP. Regardless, I have a problem with not being able to find any film jobs. That's why I asked here. As to X-rays on film, it is a cumulative process, yes, for CARRY ON. You will very clearly see the effect of X-rays on film that goes through the cargo scanners. Also, since it is being repeated 24 times a second, subtle differences in fog density that wouldn't be noticeable with stills can show up, even with subtle cumulative scans on checked film. Kodak does/did have a big, long PDF on this subject. Here is where my skills as a loader would be invaluable: I always see film through to the lab, or at least to the point of departure. Some TSA goon would NOT be successful in intimidating me into x-raying all the unprocessed film going onto a plane, even if that meant I got arrested. There's actually a clear list of laws and allowances and expectations with photographic material. I don't know about other countries, as I haven't had the pleasure of shooting abroad yet, but in the US they are well spelled out. My own experiences with film have been pretty reasonable. And as of four-five years ago, they still had special inspection machines for 35mm still film for those who requested special handling in major US airports. I think at that point they were pretty new, too, post 9/11, maybe 2007 I first noticed them.

Hope I haven't already reached that point, in so short a time ;-)

Great thread, great idea!

God knows I like to tell a lot of sarcastic jokes, but I got really, really pissed off when there were six or seven sarcastic comments in a row with zero serious ones. By Marine, I'm talking about being a military conscript, cannon fodder. Have you seen "Full Metal Jacket?" Yeah, I'm not one of those cookie cutter buzz cut guys. LOL. Last person who treated me like that on a film set got a wrongful termination/contract agreement abrogation lawsuit to put in his pipe and smoke. I don't mind bluntness, criticism, but that pecking order thing really sets me off, especially someone who is real friendly when you first talk to them on the phone, then they are an absolute classless, scum of the earth butt on the set, barking orders, treating you worse than a dog or a a cat deserves. Maybe some people misinterpreted that I was being serious, or that by saying I want film loading gigs that I don't do digital loader or AC gigs; I do. But film is what I love the most and New York City just doesn't seem to cut it anymore, although Kenny's comment seems to indicate things aren't QUITE as terrible overall as I've experienced personally. I've worked for an Aussie DP, a Puerto Rican of Chinese descent, some Russians, a Dominican, some Brits, some Americans, of course, and Canadians. Besides the different spellings, there are some cultural differences, and the internet tends to bring out the worst in people, absent any verbal cues and tonal inflections, but there are also people who are just jerks. I might suck it up on a set and pretend to tolerate these personalities for the duration of a gig, but like I said, I didn't enlist in the United States military. Better to get to know these people in advance, and avoid them at all cost, scum of the Earth, regardless of where they're from. If I've missed well-intended humor or cultural differences, I apologize. I've certainly encountered English as a second language or American vs. British English differences in culture before.

Thanks for the tip. It's a print from the '80s, and they have two, if I recall correctly, one being damaged. Bipacking produces some slight generation loss, but wouldn't those scanned results (think it's 4K) be far better than a DSLR? What sort of shrinkage have you encountered with acetate prints from the '80s? The film doesn't have any vinegar syndrome at least, and runs fine in a projector. I'd assume that is minimal because it has been out and allowed to breath and seen active use, although maybe I am wrong. I will have to examine the print more closely. Just checked and it's a 4000DPI scanner, 4-perf frame with an optical soundtrack, so pretty close to 4K.

@Kenny, wish I'd run into you four years ago, too :-( Let's just say the people I work with have their own, "unique" views of filmmaking, mainly that the latest cameras will somehow make up for their lack of talent. Then again, the last 35mm gig I had was similarly problematic. Not sure if it ever got released. I'll do that latest camera nonsense for a buck (and hope that I am uncredited, or that they never get around to releasing their brand of mush), but pay is also problematic on these DSLR "movies," you see B)

They sent it through the **(obscenity removed)** X-ray machines. Ruined. Had to be rephotographed. Insured, though. Problem with high-volume tanks, if you don't get at least 50% turnover in x amount of weeks (forget the specifics, 6, 8?) and you don't dump and replace chemistry (which obviously costs more for no profit, so you don't want to do it) you get basically effective film speed loss, increased stain, which causes a loss of contrast. I've taken to recommending charts and reading the blacks and base mask densities in my limited indie DP work. Some of the results have been worrisome. I think the Kodak allowed slop is already +/- 1/2 stop, so going outside that is really unacceptable. I've read there were DPs that used to pick their own dailie printer lights with the labs in the days of film dailies. DPs like that and the likes of Stanley Kubrick would not be impressed, or continue to do business with a lab like that. Sorry, I do not have the specific article in front of me. Will see if I can find the specifics this week.

I have no problem with constructive criticism, which that is. Yes I am looking more towards big budget feature work. That being said though, I was in Abel Cine Tech last year and some girl was having a big laugh about how she stumbled into a 35mm loading gig, because she "knew someone." Then she had a big laugh "why would anyone shoot film anymore?" That was the production that cared more about my laptop and label machine than my past work and experience. Since then, lab has been shuttered, also NFL films gone. Makes film work in NYC a lot harder to find than in LA.

I think I read your post on this earlier, Manu. I feel the same way about shipping film around. I trust you heard about what some genius at TSA did to an episode of "Lost" when they were shipping it back from HI for processing. Another scary thing is labs letting their chemistry go out of control. Saw an article, forget which film and DP where he was talking about consistency issues. Think this was a 2013 or 2014 issue of ASC mag. The DP said that would probably be the last time he shot film, for that very reason. Boy what a stupid thing to do and a surefire way to KILL OFF the very job you're in the business of doing.

You're right of course, but isn't it just a spot or a line through the lens's sweet spot, as opposed to a sensor imaging the frame all at once, with falloff and optical characteristics of the lens edge to edge? In any case, it's night and day, like the difference between an optical Super35 blowup and a scanner, even if a DSLR would be a lot faster. Worth the extra time for the extra quality that a dedicated film scanner will give. You're from Cinelab: Do you know anything about labs that are even set up to scan prints/reversal and punch through all that extra contrast? It seems like a lot of the labs can't cut through the very high OD of print film and reversal film, seeing as how motion pictures are so heavily shot on negative and lower-contrast reversal back in the day.

Wow, thanks so much for your response, Mr. Mullen. Big, big fan of your work, like "The Astronaut Farmer," and "Assassination of a High School President." Kinda sad that even you have been out of film work for six years. I didn't know that. :-( And it looks like I've already alienated one or maybe two of those 1sts in this one thread. . . All I know is that it seems like film work in NYC is completely dead, the odd summer feature, here or there. And shuttering the last labs (well, except maybe one up in Boston) anywhere in the area doesn't help. I was looking to LA or New Orleans, hadn't even considered Atlanta until Chris brought it up.

Karim: Thanks for the tip, but scanning is definitely better than rephotographing through a lens. Any time you go through a lens you lose a TON of resolution. Scanning is always better. However, I'll still have registration issues with scanning. Any software you can recommend that's the easiest for this? That's not really my area. As to fluid heads, that's really only necessary for scratch removal. There may be some scratches on this thing, but I think they want to keep those as part of the vintage, worn feel of the thing, so it won't really be an issue. Unfortunately, compared to the camera, this scanner will probably take 20x as long it is SLOWWWWWWW. I plan on just doing it when I have some down time, basically the scanner does all the work while I'm typing or watching movies on Netflix, or something.

A lot of good answers here from a lot of people with far more experience than me. That having been said, I don't think anyone touched upon this: Color on '13 and '19 are identical. They're all the same colors, same dyes, same line. Gone are the days when you had low-con stocks like Expression, older emulsion lines. Vision film is all pretty much the same, just differing levels of grain and color balance. I'd NEVER recommend pushing 2 stops, unless you're shooting the next "Eyes Wide Shut" and that's the fastest film available ;-)

Chris Burke: Really appreciate one of only two helpful replies. Some of the other comments in this thread literally have me seeing red right now.

Bill: Could you please explain how sarcastic responses likening loading to being a WWII tail gunner are "respectful," or snarky replies from Australia are in any way helpful? Didn't your parents teach you any manners? Jesus. Robin if you think making two copies of files and doing checksums is as skilled as loading mags. we'll have to agree to disagree. Your WWII tailgunner comment is still incredibly rude and condescending, regardless of how old you are. This isn't the United States Marine Corps, and I'm not some PFC you can Code Red. You read me five by five, Marine? If you have absolutely nothing save sarcastic comments, and boasting, zero to actually contribute in response to my question, why not take this novel approach: Don't post a reply.

One sarcastic response is funny. Seven are not. Got it, I should pay people to tell me what production is like there. I guess I'm a sucker for sharing my knowledge about New York freely then. And you're in Australia. . .

My apologies, I did not know that replying to e-mail notifications does not produce a post here. Sent this over a weeks ago: "So another response that ignores my question. Thanks so much. Adapt or die, got it. But not a word from anyone about where the most active 35mm location is."

Sorry, disregard my response, thought you were referring to the IN film optimized for the likes of 5240 and 5285, not the earlier locon stuff. Even still, wouldn't that be something that didn't need any flashes or pulls? Even if it was flashed, you'd think the manufacturer would do that themselves.

I'm doing this for what amounts to (the 5203 is a short end I got for free) $30 bucks for the processing and shipping, maybe $35. Can't beat that for a 4K scan. Yes, ideally, we would want to just scan the print, although I have heard that not a lot of scanners are equipped for either reversal or prints, as that is something usually confined to stills and slide shooters. Appreciate the responses, unlike my AC question with jokes and sarcasm. Interesting they have a new IN stock. I wonder if it's just disguised '03 or something similar to the Vision negative films if it requires a flash and a pull! Real internegative film should require none of that, should be either preflashed or formulated by the manufacturer to produce the correct response right out of the can. Also, use a LENS? I thought bipacking was done with the bare gate. Keep in mind I've never actually done it, just read about it and seems simple enough. Not too concerned about damage. Have plenty of 35mm print film laying around, as well as scrap negative to test the gate for both scratching as well as the proper tension when two strips of film are travelling through in tandem. This print is the last one they have, negative probably lost/destroyed, thrown out, so they want a permanent copy, and are afraid to run it. They still have 35mm changeover projectors and ran 35mm film four days ago on them :-D Of course, they also have a 4K digital projector, so, for this sort of thing, even as a film purist, for something that will see long-term play before every show, this seems to be the way to go, have a scan instead of a print. They don't have the original negative from which to strike new, lossless copies.

This has kinda fallen on my lap: I have access to a Mitchell and bipackign equipment. A certain theatre that is one of the lucky remaining few that can show 35mm has an old print, only surviving copy, and it is on the verge of wearing out. By print, I mean only 30-35 seconds, a 35mm commercial, from 30 years ago. To save money, basically just my time and the cost of film and the cost of the lab processing and shipping it, I've offered to bipack it and then scan, 12 frames at a time, the cut negative copy to make a 4K scan. Can anyone recommend a starting recommended exposure time and any flashing required or pulling required to get optimal results? How close in color and in density to I need to be in terms of the neg stock's latitude? What sort of grain buildup can I expect? Dedicated IN film is 88c a foot and these guys have no money, or I would use that. I know camera neg has higher contrast and larger grain than is optimal, but you can't beat free. How do you METER for this? I can't say that this is something I have ever done, though I have a basic knowledge of how contact prints are made from negative film, and I know that 50D is probably three or four stops faster than IN assuming I have a daylight source of illumination. Finally, as these guys have no money, and I'll doubtless be out nearly 100 hours of my time scanning and cutting half-second strips of film, can anyone recommend free or cheap software to automate lining up the film frame by frame after it has been scanned as stills? Thanks, and I'd appreciate no derogatory comments about this being like a dinosaur or a WWII tail gunner doing this. These guys probably don't have the $500 to do this and get a proper transfer (which isn't designed with a high-contrasdt print in mind anyway) and they are at the point where the thing is just sitting there unplayed because they don't want to ruin their one and only copy. I suppose if I go through the trouble of making a new negative, and I A and B roll it AFTER I scan it, I could even make newer (albeit grainier prints) if I take care to control the contrast when I make the initial bypack. Hell this may be the last time anyone ever attempts this sort of thing. . .

Where did I ever say that I refuse to work with digital shoots? What I'm saying is that they are a joke when it comes to the "skilled labor" of the loader (mostly relegated to just a fetch-and-getup with almost zero specialized training) and literally anyone could back up and copy data. Honestly, some of the morons I have worked with (who will remain nameless for their own good, not the good of the industry as a whole) seem to care more about my fkucing laptop and my label writer than my own personal qualifications. I will work to put a roof over my head, hell if they are shooting with a camera phone I'll do it under an assumed name, but I want to load film. Also, WWII tail gunner? I get that it is a joke, but very poor taste. Maybe when more of your friends in the camera and lab industry kill themselves, you will show a little bit more respect for the craft and trade. @John Warren: Appreciate your response as it is the closest to an actual answer. So you can say, objectively, that LA has the most filmed production, hands down, in the US at this point? Do you know anything about how this compares with abroad? But yeah, looks like LA is my next spot then. Guess I have to get on that damned roster of theirs. . .

That has not been my experience in New York. Also they give positions to their unqualified friends, who joke about it in Abel Cine Tech (hypothetically, of course) like it's a bad thing, and the shut down the lab after "Boardwalk Empire's" conclusion. I'm not trying to get a job in a lab, I'm trying to go where the most film SHOOTS are. That is pretty much just high end feature now. I also count myself lucky in that I've handled 65-/ and 70-mm film. I hear NO still has some film shoots, even though they ship all the film back to CA to process.

It asked me where I'm from. I'm from LA. Haven't lived there in years. Back to the question, it's a simple question: LA or NO for film loading work. I really can't make it any more simple of a question.

While I appreciate your advice, I am willing to relocate to either LA or NO to be near film production, at the expense of my family and friends. I have my IA card. As to "learning" to stick a SD card in a slot, a monkey can learn to do that job. Literally, have seen Monkeys taught to use digital cameras and put in cards. Where is the bulk of filmed production taking place? LA, NO, elsewhere?

Hi first post. It seems film is essentially dead in NYC with the end of Boardwalk Empire and the shuttering of NFL films. If I were to relocate, based on the prospect of more film loading jobs, where'd be my best bet, LA or NO? Thanks.