Hampus Bystrom

Sorry to dig up an old thread, but what does it mean that the Filmo 70DL is hand-cranked? Is that like the old cameras from the silent era? Doesn't that make it hard to maintain 24 fps?

I've been dying to shoot some anamorphic with my Mark II. Does anybody know what this is? http://cgi.ebay.com/Isco-Iscorama-Anamorph...93%3A1|294%3A50

Oh so Arri to PL adapter does actually exist? I was under the miscomprehension that if you were in possession of a Arri-cam with ARRI mount you were screwed as far as Cooke and other PL-lensen goes

Hm, that doesn't sound too good. My very slow PC can play the video without any problems... And I haven't heard any complaints from others. Haha, I don't mean to suggest that you're lying, it's just troubling that two consecutive posters have experienced this.

Hey! I made a thread some time ago wherein I solicited people to give me some comments on some stills from my film. I guess it was hard to tell anything from those, so I hope you can give me some input on moving images. The dialogue is in Swedish, so I guess you won't understand it. But in brief, it's a short film about the dark sides of humanity - taken to its extremities. Charlie, the protagonist, stops at a bar in Stockholm, an early morning, for a beer and to tell a story about obscenity, cannibalism, lost indignation and murderous Swinger-couples. I basically directed, operated, lighted, and edited the whole thing, of course I had help from my friends. And real kudos to them, but they were pretty inexperienced, in fact most of them had never worked on a set before. So please give me any critique you want. http://www.vimeo.com/5085106 The password is: voodoofilm I don't think you'll spread the film over the whole internet, but please don't. Cheers!

What I've been able to discern John Holland (haha no offence, I'm just speculating) is a grumpy old man, and you know how these old established guys are, they have their preconceived notions about things, so I guess they feel the thread is sad for some nebulous reason which you don't get privy to unless you are as old school and knowledgeable as them. But anyway, this is great for me, and I hope to be able to secure an Arri SR1 camera for a very cheap price and I get 43% off all Kodak Stocks from a great Film community here in Sweden so I think I'll be able to make it. It's about a voyeur who falls in love with the woman he secretly watches (yes I know it's very much like Kieslowskis "A Short Film about Love").

Yeah Cheers Robert! As you probably already can see it's not all that much help to established and experienced cinematographers and filmmakers. But me I've just shot super8 and digital and are trying to collect some money for a 16mm short, so this is really great for me!

No, no I said Eraserhead was his first feature, which it is, and Mulholland Drive is his (almost) last feature. I know Lynch thinks what he does is "more" than surrealism, and I really see what he means, but as far as I'm concerned, surrealism is just an epithet for art which transcends reality at the same time as it comments on it. And I really don't have any other word for describing Lynch's unique style. Anyways, what I meant by strained is that sometimes it doesn't necessarily add to the film as a whole. Even though I really like Lost Highway, some elements just seem thrown in there to "f-ck with your mind" so to speak. But while watching Mulholland Drive it's all just accumulated to perfection, same goes for Eraserhead.

For some reason I can't edit my first post so... EDIT: Oh know I remember, either it's "Pretty as a Picture: The art of David Lynch" or "An Introduction to David Lynch" (that's actually 2 different documentaries, but I can't remember which of 'em is good). The making of documentary of Mulholland Drive is also great. I'd have to say David Lynch's definite masterpieces are Mulholland Drive and Eraserhead. Although I love Lost Highway and Blue Velvet, I think that his particular narrative style and visual story telling is taken to it's artistic peak with M. Dr. and Eraserhead. In those films he uses the surrealism for a greater purpose and it doesn't feel strained. Interesting that it's his first feature and (almost) his last one.

Cheers Tom, that would be nice. Anyway, just for the sake of our humanities carnal lust for car crashes and so forth, does anybody know what happened? I mean, the internet is flocked with idiots but they mainly ruin famous people of another calibre, I can't see what there's to harassing Deakins? It's quite absurd

Yeah Lynch is definitely one of my favourites aswell, he's essentially the one who got me into filmmaking. I was 16 years old when I saw Inland Empire 2006 (yeah I'm only 19 now so I shouldn't sound all that sentimental), and it was my first Lynch-film. I didn't understand squat, but there was something powerful, like a visceral effect which made me go out and rent all of Lynch's oeuvre and I haven't looked back since. I think the Docu is actually just called "Lynch", right? I've seen it aswell, and it's okay, although there's one which is better, but I can't really remember what it's called, so what good am I?

what the f---!? Who's abusing him, and for what reason? He's not a very polemic figure is he? Man I'm confused.

Yeah I'd be really interested of that aswell, actually anything on Blue Velvet. I don't think there's any AC articles on Blue Velvet, but I might be wrong.

Thank you very much all! Screw the Cooke lenses then, it'll be easier on my budget anyway! I'll go ahead and try the 7297 out and see what happens

Oh and I meant to ask, how does high base fog look?

Okay thanks! The camera comes with a Zeiss 10-100 zoom, does that tell you anything? It's also the logo on their webpage (it's a very lowbudget rentalhouse so it's their pride and glory): http://www.yuri.nu I don't know if you'll be able to discern anything from that picture, but it's worth a shot.

Right, cheers. Shooting won't commence until late summer so should be alright. 2:nd btw, I'm pretty wanton with the technical side of this project, and I love Cooke's S4 series, does these fit Arri SR1?

Oh you mean like those 70's sexploitation films by Doris Wishman? That would be awsome actually! I'm not going to use this stock for the "real" short film later of course, then I'll be using Vision3. This is just for logistics, what the shipping will cost, how to handle the Arri SR1 and all of its little idiosyncracies, and so on. Btw, is the Vision3 available in anything else than 500T for daylight purposes?

Thanks a lot Saul and David! As it's sunny here in Sweden I guess I'll just rate it at 50 and see what happens. I loath to do a clip test because I'm sending my films abroad to Belgium and Dejhonge so, well it's too much of a hassle. It's going to be telecined at one-light transfer so I'm not expecting that much anyway. I've never shot 16mm, and I've collected some money for a short 16mm feature which essentially means I'll have to operate, light and direct the whole thing myself (I usually direct). I have acess to a steadicam aswell, I always hear these things are hard to operate so I'll try it out and see if I really do need an operator. I'm going for the Sukurov, Gus Van Santish, Béla Tarr-esque type of film. Well enough about that... I'm just interested in what kind of stock it is, I mean, what is its charactercistics? Griany, contrasty, flat, etc?

I just acquired a 400' roll of Eastman 7297 250D old stock which I bought extremely cheap. I though it would be a good opportunity to learn a 16mm Arriflex SR1 camera which I have access to. But of course it would be nice to not completely f-up this roll of film, even though it was practically free. I can't seem to find any samples or info about this particular film, what do you guys know? Thanks!

A woman looking dominant in a soviet hat? I officially love that movie now. On a more serious note, yes, I love these threads. I don't have much to contribute, but please keep posting away

Yeah I thought it might be that angle you were looking at, and I'd agree with that. But then, if the criteria for greatness is how many know of you, then Paris Hilton would be a giant amongst actresses according to Google. Of course that was a facetious remark, but my idea of cinematic genius isn't contingent on consensus.

Well come on now, there's a lot of giants left in my honest opinion. Béla Tarr is definitely a giant in my book, David Lynch is also one. Maybe you're talking about a different kind of giant, which I suppose these two directors doesn't fit. I've always admired Kubrick's ability for mainstream success but at the same time remaining true to his art.

Right, I've been making short artsy-fartsy super8 films before getting into staged narrative fiction, so it's only natural that there should be some mistakes. Bear in mind that all of my crew consists of close friends most of which knew nothing of filmmaking until now. I'm not using this as an excuse, because I think it looks really good, but as I said, we're all newbies and we would like to learn. It's not a student film, it's not affiliated with any school, it's just a privately financed little short. I was the only one in the crew who actually had any previous experience of filmmaking, rendering me the director, DoP, gaffer and effectively the autocrat. We had to our disposal, 3x300W Ianiro HD lights and 2x Falcon Eyes (Kino-Flo like) lights. Anyway, I'd appreciate any pointers, don't spear the harsh ones. So here are the stills from the camera, quickly graded in Color (B-W, Film look, added grain):

Wow, nice footage. I've also considered using the Mark II for an indie feature since my dreams of shooting s16 got shattered. Given the footage I've seen, I'm pretty damned impressed! The depth of field is nice, why the hell not? The camera is very lightweight and easy to manage.