Phil Soheili

Why not try something counterintuitive. Use a long lens for a wide shot (moving out) and using a wide lens for close ups and portraits (I tend to like that a lot if done well). It's true "you like what you like" but: a) you cannot like what you don't know and b) you don't even know what you like when you don't know it! :D and most of all c) you are already aware that you are missing out on s.th. and that there is potenial for growth. When you say you are "predictable" to yourself, that sounds a lot where I have been - for other reasons and in still photography I was getting bored of my own approach to subjects. Photography, for as much as it can be a profession, when practiced as art is passion driven. I don't think I could keep that passion alive if I cut its lifelines (creativity, play with its implicit failure and learning, the unknown, the magic) You might do tests where you force yourself to use a different lens from what would be your auto-pilot choice and then see how by simply playing with a frame your creativity grows to embrace a new constraint as a liberation. Constraints usually come from "out there" (locations, directors etc..) Why not impose some on yourself and make the experience that even then you can be creative and deliver "punchy" results through these limitations. That will give you larger sholders as well because you then know that constraints are a lever to your creativity and not a menace. Have fun Macks, it's what brought you here! Best, Phil

Hi Jon, There were these loupes you used on a light table (or even on the fresnel screen of a 4x5 (or bigger) view cameras) as you said, these can be held against the light, maybe not the sun to protect your eyes but against the open sky. Second I had a so-called linen tester (wikipedia that), was really a mini loupe the size of a billyard cane chalker They used it to literally count the lines of a (classic cmyk) print on the paper. The have a bigger magnification, but often they were made from metal so watch it they might scratch your neagtive. Regards, Phil

Hi John, I did that in the past. Problems? The 35mm full frame lens covers the super16 frame easily but: • Ususally focus "breathes". • You can use only Non-"G" (the older) lenses because the "G" type will not have an aperture dial on the barrel and if the adapter isn't prepared to press that inner lever, the lens will be at it's highest aperture (that is the lowest light pass). On the old Nikkors mostly "22". • Price is a problem. If you want to go wide with (photo) Nikkors, considering that 25mm is the normal for S16mm you will have to use a 16mm (35mm on a full frame) as a wide and a 11mm (24mm on a full frame) as a super wide. These lenses are cheap as a diamond and have huge distortion (less today, but those are all "G" types). If I remember correctly the 11mm has even the fish-eye dot on the full frame. You might still be able to get the full S16 frame lit but the distortion is crazy. On the other hand: I used a 500mm Hasselblad Zeiss with two adapters and got a frame filling moon surface on my S16mm. Alas the picture was so dark I couldn't shoot because I would have had to expose frame by frame and had no tripod for the camera (let alone the 3 pound lens!) :D))) So if you already have the older Nikkors - it's fun and some of those lenses paint beautiful pictures. Try it! Good luck and have fun!

Hello Aneesh, I could think of close-up shots on her hands or legs (e.g. crosses legs - if asit) or the feet / shoes as she changes position. You might use her reflection (in a glass or window) or her shadow. The first part (with her "off") shows how others react to her, detail shots as described above might show us her reactions to them. Best. Phil

I cannot really se which parts are moving and which ones are not, but I see you did not release the loop formers. (usually happens in automatic when you close the cover, but you can do it if you press the metal "dot" marked red on the pic) These help threading the film in but should be released when the film is fixed on the "taking spool" to allow for the films "physiological" motion.. https://www.dropbox.com/s/x8chdu6rseclbot/bolexdot.png Ciao

There is - right in front of the prism - a gelatine (filter) holder. Just check if it is fully inserted and / or if it actually carries a mask or sth like that. best, Phil

Dom, wow, (thx!) I have a similar paper that says what I shared before. But I'll take that as a proof for my second thought - that. If you overexpose as I always do for aesthetic reasons about 2/3 of a stop, the (1/4 of stop) loss from the prism should be taken care of. ;) Thanks for the comment! (If I find my source I'll share it) Best

SR from 1975 (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arriflex_16SR) Or did you mean your specific model? (Then I don't know..) ;)

According to Bolex the Prism takes off a 'whooping' 5% of the light. (Approxiamtely an eighth of a stop) I wouldn't even know how to compensate for this. Or the other way 'round: If you already overexpose the neg for any other reason you shouldn't have to worry about the prism anymore. Best of luck!

As a HDR workflow I would imagine to first determine the proper exposition for middle gray on your film, then do three scans: one at ±0 that value, one 1 aperture over and one 1 aperture under it. Do all scans with the same brightness, contrast, sharpness, WB settings => as flat as possible. Don't move the film on the scanner between scans. If your resulting images are photos you can use Photoshop or Lightroom to create HDR images. (Then QT to convert to film clips) (I am not aware of any film & video editing software that could do this HDR composing but I guess there should be some out there.) In my experience you are best off with the lowest contrast image as you can possibly get (ever seen a RED RAW?) and give it the "shape" in daVinci or whatever is comfortable to you. - AND: Who does the S8 scan in Milan (I suppose Milan, Italy)? I have a few rolls I would need a scan from? It would be nice if you could say a few words about the scan quality once it's done.. - Good luck!

15-20 yrs is not as far away as one might guess. When I used to be the assitant of a fashion photographer (back in 1991) we used the newest emulsion at that moment: Fuji Velvia 50 slide film for catalog work and for editorial purposes (when a little more creativity was allowed) we sometimes cross processed Kodak Gold 100 negative film. (I think "Gold" was a european denomination and in the US it had another name). When b&w was requested we used Ilford xp2 for its great sensitivy and tolerance of over and underexposure. Fuji's Velvia 50 is still available today (as might be Kodak "reversable" negative films) and if handeled properly produces great result that has nothing to envy of digital capture. Cheers, Phil

The fact that you have that gut feeling of the rig being wrong, says it all. (Why would you have psted the question?) Learn to listen to your intuition. Make it rock steady even if that means you need to buy or rent pieces. Even if it won't crash, you'll be a lot calmer while shooting. There's no need to put anybody at risk. Remember, it's only a movie. Good luck, too!

Ah, ok! I just saw the bts. It's projected but not in "front-pro" process as in your "diagram". Maybe they call this process front-projection too, I thought it refers to the mirror system only. Cheers.

another point in using the mirror is that your projected footage is at 90° perfectly. You don't want to (at least most of the times) see perspective distortion in the background images. If you have a tilt/shift lens or other means to control the perspective on your projector AND if you can manage not to have your actors and buildings cast shadows on the backdrop you might give it a try. Test it. But from my experience of some decades (!) ago: I don't think the image above is actually front-pro. To me it looks like a painting. Front-pro was projected on a 400% (or better) reflective silvery foil. The image could actually be seen ONLY in the camera's viewfinder because the ambient light during prep. would kill the image. Ambient light is high in the pic. as you can tell by the shadow in the unequally lit seamless background (in the curve) Maybe things have changed... ;) Good luck!

Hi Gareth, it's going to be "cozy warm" there. Might this not actually damage the camera and film? Maybe never letting the engine run in idle might do good. Good luck!

If I actually was there in person, by the look of the girl - slightly towards her left - I'd feel invited to put myself next to her left sholder. Even more so because there's actually no place on her right to stand. I feel the pic 2 corresponds to my physical perception of the scene. And I prefer the frame with the sewer in the background - but that was not the question... ;D Greetings to all.

Hi, it is as simple as placing a cookie cutter with bars in front of a focussed light source You might place a metal cutout in a fresnel. That may create more or less visible colored "spills" around the edges and I guess there's a reason these images are b&w. When I did that some decades ago I used a simple slide projector. Best, Phil

Good day everybody, I was wondering if there where any regulations on filming car licence plates. We will be having at least 5 (practical) cars with licence plates in sight in the picture. I was going to print them with random numbers. Is this a good idea? Can I use plates that are in my posession or could it be that these "numbers" have been reused once the original cars where "trashed"? Or is there a common "cinema plate" prefix as "555" for telephone numbers? Is there a government agency dealing with this where I could get accurate answers? (we would use Washington State plates) Any experiences / help? Thanks a lot Phil

I'll let you know when the deal is perfect.. (supersticious.. ;))))

Good day Matej, thank you for the comments. Glad you mentioned the 7-63 which has been offered to me now. I guess I will go for this one. Thanks again! Phil

Hello, I have the opportunity to get a (super16 converted) Canon 11-165mm (PL) for a very reasonable price. I previously used the 10-100 Angénieux on my Super16 SR2 but was somewhat disappointed with the image quality (in terms of contrast and sharpness). The man at the lab put it simply (but perfectly): "It was ok in the 80s, but it simply doesn't meet today's expectations of focus, contrast and all-over look." I was wondering if anybody had experiences with this lens, or even footage (16mm) that could be shared. I am not sure if testing the lens is of great use to me, since my only reference is the Angénieux and I guess it won't be hard to "beat" it. Will one be able to tell the difference between images from this lens and those aqcuired with primes on Super16mm? Will this lens meet our 'modern' expectations? Thank you and a good day to all.

Good day, For a low budget short I will have many day exterior scenes (in moving and parked car and on the street) where I initially thought using only scrims, reflectors and negative fill, because I was afraid adding light would slow us down too much. But we are in winter and being in the mountains the weather (and light) can change very dramaticaly in very little time so I thought that if I took only one single but very powerful artificial source it could not slow us down so much and would up the results noteably. I figure a 6 or 8K would fit every shot (as I can always bring down it's power, but I obviously cannot raise the light of a smaller source) and we would not have to rent more fixtures. (less fixtures, fewer people to physically manage the light, fewer generators, smaller truck, faster shooting) Let's suppose physical space is not a matter: if I need the light it "lower" I could simply move the source further away before it hits the 8x8 diffusion. But: Is there something I miss? Is this (less fixtures ... faster shooting) a "valid formula" without overly compromising the result? (We will shoot on SRIII, Super16, Vision3 200T) Thank you in advance for any advice or shared experiences!

Hi, I don't think it could be a diopte problem, because the diopter will only have effect on the viewing of your view finder screen. You cannot change the focus of a projected image (as on your focus screen) by putting on glasses. - Hope that makes sense to you. I first would try to reproduce the error in a controllable environment - studio, home etc.. if it persists, check if they are always off the same amount. Are no parts of your out of focus pictures in focus or are they in focus maybe on one side yes and on the other no? (Did you drop the camera or did it get hit recently?) Most probably it is going to be a collimation issue (as has been suggested). If setting your diopter is difficult with a picture on the focusing screen you might as well take your lens off, point the camera to a bright source and focus your diopter to see the grain of the focus screen. It dosn't have anything to do with the "incoming" picture, it just makes it easier for your eyes IF you usually wear glasses for sight. Good luck to you.

Good day everybody! I want to invite you to take a look on "the Craftsman" - a 7 minute short movie I shot last year in Milan, Italy. It is a student's (director) project! I would appreciate your thoughts on the movie and my work. Please find it here: http://www.super16.it/2014/05/14/watch-the-craftsman-online/ (There's an english sub'ed version under the original italian) Thank you all.

What's wrong with how it is lit? What's the look? What's the story? What does your director go for in this scene? And do NOT worry, it will look great anyway (it's on film!) (( :D)) Cheers, Phil