Aapo Lettinen

sorry I had no time to read all the posts but couple of notes: - you should find a good indie DP who can work out the production's difficulties with you - you should find someone with previous producing experience to help you out with the project -it is possible to use multiple cameras to shoot the project. if proper cameras are too distracting for some scenes you can use amateur ones like dslr's, blackmagic pocket, etc. which are not special looking and are very small. depending on the film's style of course. but you can get it working very well with your DP and it is possible to shoot the rest of the project with better cameras if needed. Something from Blackmagic could be ideal for this, like Ursa Mini 4.6k or similar. -probably no need for RAW and difficult post production, you can use easier formats like prores which simplifies the workflow a lot. is also cheaper, faster and easier to backup and review on set. -Osmo at least with the X3 does not differ much from go pro in terms of image quality and adjustments. it is small and lightweight of course but that's the only benefit of it. people will probably still stare at it because it is interesting and funny looking gear -the best way to learn is to surround yourself with people more experienced than you. Planning and trying to do everything by yourself is the hardest way to learn filmmaking and usually also bad for the movie... so you should just find the best people you can to help you with the production, especially because it is your first feature, and maybe with the next one you can use more hats at the same time if you want :)

original: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2216240/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1 but it is very usual approach to do remakes with American actors, it is a bit of joke here actually :lol: ("if our movie is a huge success we can sell it to Yankees so they can make a remake of it" :lol: ) look at Disney for example, most of your favourite Disney movies are adaptations or remakes of some previous work. For example the Lion King was adapted from Japanese manga/anime (Kimba---->Simba, just change the name a little and it is original enough :P )

I have understood that with the 100M+ budgets, about half of it or so goes to advertising/promotion and the rest is used to actually make the movie. in Finland, with the budgets usually ranging from about 1million€ to 2.5million€ , usually about 40-60% goes to cast and crew's salaries and the rest goes to everything else, like rentals, marketing, post production, etc. with "bigger budgets" from 4 to 8 million €uros it may be different but roughly about 50% usually goes to the salaries here and the rest is for other costs of making the movie. the actors actually have pretty much fixed prices here so it is easier to calculate the costs

I thought the whole idea of ripping off European films was to be sure the film would definitely be a success because it is a good script and tested beforehand with the audience. so much smaller risk than making anything original. The original movie did not get theatrical distribution in Finland btw, the Tom Hanks version did...

probably will look more like a bumpy track. can your grip(s) run with the dolly fast enough to match the actor's speed, this may be quite hard to archive? is it possible to shoot from a pickup truck, golf cart, ATV etc. which is self powered and possibly more stable at high speed?

one which could do that would be too little take-up tension combined with improperly engaged thumb lock in the take-up side sprocket, which leads to film buildup to the take-up side --->transport claw rips the perforations and stops transporting film --->film buildup also to the feed side before the take-up sprocket eats too many film loops and the magazine jams. that's one probable theory before knowing more

if you can take a detailed video of loading of that magazine if is probably easier to tell what is going on

there may be something else going on. you did have correct loop size (thumb for the feed side, forefinger for take-up) and correct mag loading position to the camera ( transport claw up and the mirror corner at the upper right corner of the gate) ? some problem with the take-up side sprockets might be it, maybe the push lock in the middle. if the camera itself is working correctly and the mag is properly seated. is the film snapped or still in one piece and did the mag fully jam when it did that? if the mag was like that from the start and did not suddenly start to do that then it is probably wrongly serviced and assembled which is almost always the case with ebay cameras...

you mean the film lock button near the pressure plate and not the gear lock lever which is next to the drive gear? the gear lock is very easy to fix by yourself if there is something wrong with it but the film locking tab may need quite a bit of magazine dismantle. most likely it just needs cleaning and fresh oil. if you mean the film side springs on the guide side of the pressure plate that needs even more disassembly. Frozen 400ft gears means that they don't move at all or are just very sticky? you can open the gear cover plate and see if there is a obvious problem, you can't screw up any tolerances if you just remove the cover. just note the how the gear locking lever's spring is installed so that if you remove it for some reason (testing the gears etc) it is easy to put back

I second that it is better to have a 400ft mag camera if you are shooting a bigger project. You are able to use C-mount lenses with Eclairs so you will save a lot on lenses compared to PL mount camera if you are shooting more of docu style and don't need cine mechanics for narratives etc. more challenging focus moves. If you need a small camera for quick pickups or more dangerous shots you can have a K3 or Bolex as a second camera. If you have big enough changing tent you can spool down films in it, no need to use darkroom necessarily for that and that way you will probably get less dust/hair to the films also if making the spooling at home. I spool down all my films using mid size Harrison tent, with 1000ft rolls it is quite tricky but no problem with 400ft and less. you may need to customise your rewinder so that it fits well inside the tent, leaving enough headroom so that the larger film roll does not touch the ceiling

what the mags specifically do to not load right? have you tried different emails with Olex, I used gmail the last time and had no problem. he is also a forum member so you can try to PM him also

actually, by my experience, most of the real film originated stuff does not "LOOK LIKE FILM" , it is a very special narrow range of looks which people are considering "film look" and it is very easy to miss that with for example lighting or colour correction. shooting for technical quality (very sharp, minimum grain & aberrations, etc) + lighting decisions + heavy colour correction is the usual way to do that

cinematic look with a digital camera? 1. lighting 2. color correction most of the other stuff is just trying to make the image to not look bad if you're shooting with mediocre equipment. good lenses and dynamic range may help if you want to use lots of flares and stuff or shooting wide open all the time for some reason. I think it is usually not necessary to try to make digital to look like film. just make it look great on its own, to have its own look, and try to benefit from that. but if someone is very short on money or wants to cheap on things, usually on shoestring/student/low budget level, one can try to emulate film if it is absolutely not possible to shoot on the real stuff. I don't see a reason why one should do that but it may not necessarily look that bad though it's nothing like real film in the end. a little bit of grain is handy when trying to hide bad VFX however so it has its uses :lol:

I believe the biggest factor could be VFX for the Alexa vs. Film choice. much easier to do the fx for digital image..easier keying, less noise/grain matching, etc

It has to be removed before developing or otherwise it will go all over the place and screw up your film AND the developing chemicals

you're only using older fixtures and not for example arrisuns/maxes I assume

There's keykode numbers and film info printed between perfs so they will appear in your image. That's a common problem with oddball film formats, the other being camera and scanning issues

you can get fresh Orwo and Fomapan with 2R perfs

I guess it has something to do with the fact that HMI is a round point source whereas larger tungsten bulbs usually have the filament arranged to a flat rectangular configuration. thus the HMI can waste more light to the sides whereas the tungsten filament is more of a directional source

ps. after the flare shot you can see typical Krasnogorsk 2 scratches on the beach scene :mellow:

"scene" . never seen the movie but if it used the Meteor 5-1 zoom lens you can spot it quite easily watching the bokeh which is 6corner star-shaped (resembling cookeS4 "star" bokeh a bit though different number of blades) when stopped down to normal shooting apertures. if flares are present the Meteor usually has purplish-blue or blue-colored very prominent and quite complicated flare with two or even three full circles visible if at widest zoom setting. some old travel shots combined to a short film where you can see the flare very clearly at 4:47 (boy that's lots of flares :lol: ) https://vimeo.com/17633094 (the story is really good but I never made English translations for it, should do a proper hd version someday with better scanning)

Chemistry is full of this kind of stuff, it is scary sometimes how badly something could go wrong if just mixing seemingly harmless substances carelessly. In photography the ferricyanide is used for reducing negative density for example. A good basic principle is that if you don't know exactly what you're doing, don't do anything :unsure:

do you mean rem jet removal? alkali bath + water jets is the usual way as I have understood. the stuff is quite sticky and falls off in flakes which you don't wanna stick to the emulsion side. some people have used toothbrush or similar mechanical way for small batches but it is highly unpractical. with chemicals you really have to know what you are dealing with, there is dozens or hundreds of different developer formulas in use and they can contain all kinds of potentially dangerous chemicals , for example formaldehyde (e6 kits etc) , metol with possibly hydroquinone added (standard b/w developers especially those sold in powdered form) , 4-aminophenol (some single use developers like Adonal, Rodinal, R9 oneshot, etc) , caustics like potassium hydroxide, etc... The chemistry also changes when it the solution is used or stored for long. And you also have to store and dispose the waste correctly to avoid environmental pollution and unwanted chemical reactions. you can accidentally make something more dangerous if you handle them without knowing what you're doing. Like accidentally making a chemical waste canister to explode because of wrong mixing causing pressure buildup, never a good idea :o that's why I recommended Coffenol for starters so you can start with the least hazardous chemicals available and then proceed to the other stuff when you are used to handle the chemicals safely. if you have a photographer friends with a darkroom they can teach you the basics and safe procedures :)

Yeah it works but the photo lenses have so long focal lenghts for a 16mm format that you need to have normal and wide lenses from smaller format

money and time are expendable, I would worry about the Health thing if cooking photographic chemicals at home depending on what stuff is used and how often and what the conditions are. Most of that stuff is at least somewhat harmful/poisonous, causes skin problems/damage and may also be carcinogenic. They are also dangerous to environment so care should be taken when handling that stuff and wash waters from the processes. It's a good idea to read the MSDS's first and search for safer alternatives before ordering anything