Alex Opdam

Nate thanks for the reply and the link. Just to clarify, i can: 1) set my SLR camera to 1/60 and my light meter to 1/60, expose as the meter suggests and get comparable results as if i had: 2) run the same stock through a 16mm camera @ 25fps and 1/50, expose as the meter suggests Unfortunately looking at my camera now, since it has digital aperture and shutter controls it only allows me to change aperture in full and half stops which could be a bit of a pain. By the way, with the rgbcolorlab canisters, am i able to get it processed + printed at my local (Sydney, Australia) consumer still photolab? I'd tell them not to adjust the image, and print on matte. I'm just thinking that postage could get expensive if the film has to make 3 trips. Lastly, was that a 'no' on using normal still film in the mean time to practice deliberate over and underexposing by certain fstops on areas of the frame? Thanks again.

Hi everyone, I'm in the process of buying a 16mm camera which i intend to practice on soon (albeit in a very frugal manner). People have discussed the idea of practicing lighting and exposure on a 35mm SLR camera to save on development costs. I realise there are a lot of differences between motion and still film but is there a way to make them comparable? For example if i was to get a roll of say fuji 500D film and fixed my shutter at 1/60 (putting 500ASA and 1/60 into my digital light meter for light readings) would the relative exposure levels be similar to if i had been shooting 500ASA 16mm stock? (of course taking readings at 1/50 with my light meter's correlating aperture suggestion). If that paragraph was a little confusing, what i mean is this: if i fix my SLR shutter to 1/60 (which is comparable to the 1/50 id be using at 25fps on the 16mm cam) would i get an accurate sense of how many stops above and below i could effectively expose in my 16mm shooting? Is the latitude in still and motion stocks similar or is there really no substitute for actual 16mm tests? Keeping in mind this is really just simplistic testing like keeping fill 2 stops below key light on a face, shooting with a subject in front of the sky/light source and that sort of thing. I've seen some website like rgcolor.com mentioned before (this doesn't work for me so i assume it is slightly differently spelt) which sells motion stocks in still canisters - can anyone tell me where i can get these and if its worth getting them over standard still film? The idea of all this i guess is that i can practice composition and lighting on an SLR (i realise i need to crop the picture to get correct aspect) and then practice pace, cutting and continuity on my old consumer minidv camera, so i really make the most of what i shoot on 16mm. Thanks in advance for any advice people. Cheers, Alex

Thanks a lot for the detailed explanation Phil! It makes sense but it never occurred to me that video stretched pixels like that - interesting stuff. To clarify, though, am i correct in thinking that im best off asking the telecine place to crop the image to 16x9 as they put the image onto minidv, then tell premiere it is using a widescreen image, and simply editing and eventually exporting to dvd like that? Thanks everyone for your help Cheers, Alex

David i have seen a widescreen DVCAM unsqueezed in premiere to its correct aspect so im pretty sure the same can be done with squeezed minidv. What you were saying sounds good, but do you know if this squeezing and unsqueezing leads to any loss of quality? To clarify, at the end of the day do you think squeezing/unsqueezing would get me a better 16x9 picture for dvd output, than if i was to just crop the 4x3 minidv image during editing? Thanks for the replies guys.

Hi everyone, I posted this same query a few days ago and i'm pretty sure it disappeared when the forum was hacked, if not feel free to delete this one. My situation is this: i will be shooting on standard 16mm (with pencilled 1.85 lines on ground glass) which will be then telecined to minidv for editing on a home setup. I assume the most common practice is to just digitally crop the top and bottom of the 4:3 frame when i begin editing in premiere, but im curious to hear of a better option. Since minidv tape is limited in resolution as it is, is there any way to have the image cropped at the telecine place and stored anamorphically on the tape so i make the most of the limited minidv resolution? Thanks for all comments and suggestions! Cheers, Alex

HungryHippo did you buy the K3 from a random individual seller on Ebay or from a place that sells K3s the whole time? Also out of interest how much did you pay for it and is there anything you think i should ask about/look for in particular Thanks!

Hi everyone, I have been playing around with video for a while now but am just itching to start shooting film (but as low a budget as possible). Financial reasons have basically kept me from taking the risk of grabbing a camera and shooting some rolls, but after some recent work helping out with ADR recording it has got me thinking that it may not be so bad after all. If i was to: 1) get a non synched and loud camera like a bolex or scoopic 16m 2) shoot my film, getting a guide track with a cheap tape recorder and mic 3) telecine the lot 4) synch up the guide track in premiere 5) record new dialogue (carefully) using the 'guide' track 6) slap on an atmosphere track Would this look passable? My main concern is that with the non-exact 24fps that the dialogue would look choppy, but i figure the difference is so slight and they are recording it TO the final footage, there should be no real problem. What are the general thoughts here guys? I know it isn't ideal, but i just think that at least at the end of the day i can guarantee clear crisp sounding dialogue which is the main noticable problem with no-budget films the likes of which i'd be making. Secondly, i need to save as much money as i can these days so the price difference between say a scoopic and a acl is significant - plus it saves me the purchase of a boom mic and equipment. Opinions are welcome. Cheers, Alex

Hi everyone, Sorry this is not more specific but i just thought i'd post and see if there were any inexpensive 16mm cameras on the market. I'm looking for something with a sharpish zoom lens that can go fairly wide (in the district of around the 9mm mark ideally). I basically want something solid and reliable, but _not_ necessarily crystal synched. I've been using video for a while and i want something that i can use to get some (reasonable) quality film images out of. Although a quiet synched cam would be nice, I will be using ADR most likely (for financial reasons) to save money on the camera. I guess a bolex or a scoopic 16m is the sort of thing im looking for - does anyone have or know of any of these for sale? You can contact me at aopdam@hotmail.com if you wish. Thanks for your time ps. I am in Sydney, Australia.

Ah these look more promising - thanks a lot John!

Thanks everyone for the above replies - I've now checked out local hardware stores and even a couple of light wholesalers and none seem to sell them. Seems as if they aren't the easiest thing to get a hold of in my neck of the woods (Sydney Australia). I'm going to try some photographic shops and so forth, does anyone know the specific name of the bulb im looking for? Basically i want the generic shape bulb with tungsten coloured light so i can stick it in a portable worklamp and use it for closeup (just off camera) lighting. Robert Rodriguez used them in el mariachi which is where i got the idea, but he didn't specify what they were called. 'Tungsten Halogen Lamp' is all i've got to go for now, any other suggestions?

Hi people, I've heard/read people talking about using 350watt standard shaped bulbs and sticking them in workmans lamps etc just out of frame in order to get cheap and convenient (correct colour temp) lighting. I'm in Sydney and recently had a look around at a few lighting stores, noone seemed to know anything about them. I mentioned 'photoflood' and 'tungsten bulbs' but they didn't appear to have any of them. Does anyone know firstly whether they work satisfactorily (i realise they wont have much output, but id have them close in) or where i can get them? ps. apparently they have a very short lifespan (like 3 hours) before the colour temperature is no longer accurate, is this true for all of them? Thanks for your help!

Thanks for the response David, sorry about the length i got a bit carried away. And thanks Phil for your brutal honesty, i think.

Hi everyone, For a bit of background, i'm 19 years old and although i have only been thinking about the film industry (in terms of a viable career) for about 8 months now, i feel like (for the most part) the more i learn the more enthused i am about working in it. I feel like i know a huge amount compared to what i did even a year ago, but also realise that there are entire worlds of knowledge in this area that i haven't even touched on - and that is a good thing. To give you all an idea of where i am at (and a context for the questions): i have used and played around with minidv cameras a substantial amount (albeit in an amateurish environment) and know the basics of non-linear editing soundbridges etc. I have done a lot of reading recently and a lot of things have come together and become much clearer in my mind - im obviously no expert but the practical relationship between types of lighting, film stocks, shutter speed, f+tstops, aperture, lenses, depth of field, filters are all coming together and i can imagine myself in the not too distant future being able to do rudimentary film lighting without too much hassle. My 'goal' i guess at this stage is to see my own story/script ideas created (by me and a very small and resourceful crew) to a semi-professional quality (image and production wise) on the cheapest of shoestring budgets and then to use these as a learning tool/stepping stone to making more of my own productions (on a higher budget) as well as to assist me with getting paid work in the industry doing something i enjoy. The above information was provided purely as a context for the questions i am asking and not gloating or anything so please do not take it as such. [ok question time] I have some questions that, while mentioned around the place, i have never really seen solid answers to and i'd really appreciate if i could get a bit of closure (or at least another set of opinions) on. Well here goes: 1) i have already helped out on numerous student and independant films (in non-creative roles) and while i have absorbed a lot about how the whole film production is 'supposed' to hang together, i haven't learnt as much as i would like about the technical specifics of film lighting and (film) camera usage. What is the best way of doing this? 2) I'd like to go for an edgy gritty looking image (think lock stock and two smoking barrels, but maybe with less orange and a bit less contrasty) but without the amateurish video sharpness of video. Basically, my image doesn't need to look like it was masterfully created, it just needs to look believeable and relatively realistic, while being CHEAP. Can i achieve this with _really_ minimalist lighting setups, superfast film stocks, and using predominately natural sunlight, or will this just end up looking sadly second rate? 3) Is (basic) makeup on shooting really necessary? I'm talking outdoor sunlight, are the actors going to look sallow and unnaturally white, or relatively normal? I just see makeup as an unnecessary headache and something that often comes across on film as cheesy and contrived. (broad generalisations i admit) 4) In my mind, i'd really like to work (at least at this stage) with a tiny crew of: myself as director/dp/camera operator, a sound operator/boom swing, general assistant (can push dolly or hold reflector or whatever) and of course actors (which would probably be no more than a few at a time to ensure minimal personal time is wasted). Does this sound stupid? Because i just feel like i could get so much done with a small crack team of good people when working on small (largely dialogue driven) high concept films, abandoning the dead weight that seems to pull a lot of movies down to a painful crawl. 5) I live in Sydney Australia where the only thing that seems to get shot on film is commercials, and the occasional 'high budget' film which is generally overcrewed as it is with no room or need for an extra pair of hands (and extra mouth to feed). I have been thinking recently about moving to LA or London and trying my luck over there, my only fear being that i'll find it is just as hard to land lowly work (even for free) and i'll be stuck there, can anyone who lives in these places shed any light on the situation? 6) I keep being told but a couple of people that i should 'just start making something and stop talking about it'. I feel that they are correct, but that i want to learn as much as i can about the physical film and shooting on it before i go in there and start throwing rolls and money down the drain because i haven't exposed the way i wanted too etc. Is there any way to get free/cheap practice shooting film and at least seeing what it looks like without spending a packet for telecine and camera rental? I read somewhere that kodak might give out free rolls to students etc and that rental houses might even lend cameras for free to students - this sounds too good to be true to me! 7) People keep saying "make things on video" since i have a low end minidv camera. I can see the logic in it, but since the end product is inferior and in my opinion hard to take seriously, am i really gaining much from this process or am i better off putting my efforts (and money) into learning and making mistakes on 16mm film itself where my labours are at least going towards something that could have a lasting value. I just don't want to have my hard earned money disappear into development/telecine costs that in reality taught me nothing. What is the general opinion? Well i realise i have rambled on again, i guess i just have so many questions running through my head and this 7 is barely half of them. If anyone has the time and inclination i really apprecaite helpful responses because nothing is simple it seems at this stage. Thanks for your time, Alex