Hampus Bystrom

Topic is pretty self-explanatory, I'd like to buy one of those Viewing Glasses, name your price. I've been wanting to buy one those from Filmtools.com but I live in Sweden and the shipping is INSANE, even for something as small as that. So, please mail me; hampus.bystrom at (I can't write that symbol) gmail.com or at this site. Cheers

Yeah I don't get the Paranoid Park being "boring", well it's subjective of course but nevertheless, I liked Paranoid Park both as a narrative and as a visual concept. I'm definitely looking forward to "Milk" here in Sweden.

It's part of the "civil discourse" in the porn-case I would think. I mean, it's titties and stuff... all exposed... not okay. I myself used to lambaste porn before I stopped being a hypocrite and discovered it's utility. Now I praise it! Well, maybe not praise it, but I see it's potential.

Which is pretty much what I said, but I got confused and thought that Daniel was talking about Christianity, which will die out. But religion is inherent, we human beings will always attempt to explain what we can't understand, and people will take advantage of that. As always. As for your questions, I wouldn't know how to answer that either. There will always be qualified speculations within the realm of science, and as far as Homo Sapiens Sapiens goes, some scientist claims that we're nowhere perfect or at the cusp of the evolutionary chain. Indeed, some scientists make rather grim conclusions about how we probably will regress rather than progress in our next evolutionary step.

Daniel, I actually think it will go away. Because this debate HASN'T gone on for long, I mean, if you were an atheist in 1500 or 1600, you would just get killed. And even in the 1800 being atheist meant seclusion (i.e. Nietzsche) and being viewed as a hopeless eccentric. I personally think that Christianity as a religion is going to be inherently absent in about 100 years, not to say that this will solve the world?s problems, there will pop up new ignorant dogmatic religions, and then they'll fade away with time. The worship of false prophets seems to be horrifyingly ubiquitous in the human psyche.

What is your point exactly? You have to forgive me if I pass judgement on you, I've been known to think of everybody who speaks in favor of the bible as insane fundies, so... Nothing personal, okay? Anyway, this is a standard response when you cite the weird, violent verses in the bible. "It's taken out of content!!!!" "You have to read the WHOLE book before you can say anything!!!!!". And again, I've been raised in a quasi-christian/half-atheist household and I've been dragged to church, and I've attended bibleschool, so I HAVE infact read the whole bible, albeit in fragments. There's no way that book is "divinely inspired", it's a f-king 2000 year old, mossy, fallible book that contains so many errors. Not only in zoology (it says that bats are birds), it says that the earth is resting on pillars and all other stuff that's written in an ignorant time. And it's not even beautifully written, why not praise the Iliad (which is older), Ovids poetry, Platos Symposium or all these other old-ass texts that are heck of a lot better written than the bible. Haha, back to your response, read those verses in the whole, you are free to post as much content as you wish from those passages that I posted. It won't change a thing. It's still the same hateful tirades, blatant fallacies, and weird contradictions; because the bible is a collection of stories and writings from different authors in different times and with different states of mind. Why are we still extolling this book? Don't ask me, I have no idea. It's a faulty, old book with no profundity whatsoever. It's main character is some charismatic longhaired Charles Manson-esque psychopathic claiming to be the son of god; whose story is looked back upon from disparate accounts by his own blind followers that were probably power-hungry themselves. And by the way, you seem to make a lot of statements about this Jesus-figure, like you have some insider-information. Are you talking about your spanish neighbor Jesus (pronounced Chesus)? Or this old, dead since 2000-years, supposed prophet called Jesus? Because there's no way you can claim to have any knowledge of him in any other way than from the biased, non-proven, accounts that stem from the bible.

Eh, okay. I don't see why calling the christian god a douche bag is ignorant. It is my subjective opinion derived from reading the bible. Oh the biblical description of god can't back that up you say? Well, again, it's my personal oppinion and here's some verses why I believe so (no paraphrasing here, the verses will be referenced to): From the Psalms: 21:9 Thou shalt make them as a fiery oven in the time of thine anger: the LORD shall swallow them up in his wrath, and the fire shall devour them. 21:10 Their fruit shalt thou destroy from the earth, and their seed from among the children of men. Here god basically says that he'll make both you and your children burn if you make him angry... Seems reasonable. From book of the Romans: 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. Here, it's basically postulated that homosexuals are worthy of death. From the gospel according to John: 15:6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. Yeah.. if you don't believe that Jesus could walk on water and heal the sick, you're going to be burned. These are but a few of the myriad of similar examples in the bible. For those of you who are interested in an unbiased (I.E. churches who make their living by interpreting the bible) version of the bible; check out http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ And again, evolution has never been a theory of the origin of life, and scientists are still debating on how we came to be. Evolution is the process, whereby simple lifeforms can grow more complex over time. Period. It's nothing more, nothing less. And it IS proven, by fossile records and strata layers. I really have problems with theistic evolutionists also, but I don't have the time to adress them here.

Well intelligence design is obviously a joke, no need to even discuss it. It's akin to Scientology and other beliefs that DESERVE (forgive my modesty) ridicule. Evolution vs. God? This is supposed to be the fight of the millennia, even though they're completely compatible with each other. I can't say this with 100 % certainty of course, but I'm almost 99.9999% sure that the Christian god doesn't exist; I wouldn't want him to, because he is a megalomaniac douche bag. If god is supposed to be this infinite conscious that we're yet to discover, then fine, but I don't base my life on what "he" (if it's P.C. to call "him" that) thinks. I live my life without taking a supernatural being into account; just like Laplace I have no need for that presumption. I really don't see the need for god as a concept, since, now a days, we can pretty much ascertain everything in the universe correctly without the bible, Qur’an or the Talmud. Faith? Honestly I think there's no such thing as faith, just blind faith. Just a make-believe crutch that serves as a obstacle to human perception. Of course people are allowed to believe in any fairytales they wish, if it makes them feel good, but at this point I just think that organized religion just poses a hindrance, and is taken FAAAAAAAR to seriously then what's necessary. Haha, that's quite a rant. Well, organized religion annoys the living hell out of me.

By the way, onto a related but different question. I've been encouraged to telecine to HDCAM-SR 4:4:4, which I have found a post house capable of here in Stockholm. The thing is, what the hell is HDCAM-SR exactly? I know it's a sort of tape format that can hold 10bit 4:4:4 information. But around there my knowledge of this format ends. Forgive my ignorance so far, but I'm a beginner who has recently scored some cash to make a short film, and I want to do EVERYTHING myself to keep the production costs to a minimum. My workflow is somewhat makeshift at this point: Shoot S16 Tri-x Reversal Develop at Color by Dejonghe Telecine to HDCAM-SR > some sort of Final Cut integrated disc Edit in Final Cut Pro Burn a Blu-ray disc for Stockholm Film Festival, Sundance Festival and several other Swedish festivals Is this what you would prescribe? I've been told to master in HDCAM-SR, but I don't really know how you use the HDCAM-SR format properly. Anyway, thanks for all your help

Thanks very much Andres! That's great, I'll check them out.

Wow Richard that's really nice. I've thought about doing that, but haven't really deared. I've processed Tri-X negative 35mm still film, with fairly good results. Is it hard to process 16mm, I would like good results, but I'm not picky, I can like the Guy Maddineqsue grainy experimental imagery. Anyways, maybe Nordic Film does process 16mm b/w reversal, I've just checked with Stockholm Post Production, and they said that I had to send b/w reversal to Germany. Might've been some confusion tough. I'll check with em!

Wow cheers, I still think it's a bit pricey tough. I mean here in Sweden the prize is 0.7 EUR / m and that's for color negative 16mm. You would think that BW reversal would be cheaper, but I guess that it's so unusual nowadays that the prices go up. Oh, anyway I'll give Andec a call, now my budget will go up *SADFACE*

Cheers, I thought Andec might process 16mm. Have been using them for super8, but are they really the best? And thanks for your link, but that doesn't say anything about b/w reversal.

Hey people, I've just learned after, initial misinformation, that my lab in Stockholm doesn't process black and white film. I've tried searching this forum (the searchengine is a bit flawed) and googling it and maybe my googling skillz are subpar, but I haven't found any good information on this. So, where in Europe can you get your black and white super16 film developed, cheapest, most effective, and best possible way? Cheers! By the way, do they x-ray airmail and stuff? If I where to send my 4000 ft. of film in a box, is there anyway to secure that they won't x-ray it?

Hey people! I find myself constantly using your immense knowledge and then bolting without ever paying back with some of my own knowledge, well that's just because I can't help you with anything! I hope you can overlook this weakness for now, until the day I'm this genious director who you're all coming to for wise words. Now, boasting aside, I'm actually looking for some black and white inspiration, lightning and mood-wise, for interior bar-scenes. This could be anything from paintings, photography to actual frames from movies. I love these bar-scenes: Cassavetes' Faces: Probably just available lights in this one. (Sorry for the bad screenshot) Béla Tarrs Damnation: Not a interior bar-shot per say, but if you've seen the film, you'll know what I mean, I don't have any screens on the interiors of the bar, but it's great. So if you know of any nice looking bar-scenes, preferably in black and white, feel free to post 'em! Some paintings or just photographs would also be great of course.

Wow, that seems really cool. Yeah I know that she runs the estate, I've tried e-mailing her but she haven't answered yet. What do you play? And what does SHE play? Never tought that one of the worlds greatest jazz-drummers daughter would have some chops, I mean, I don't know why she wouldn't... Well anyway, man I'd really like this song for the intro.

Rather than starting a new thread, I thought I might get some answers in this one. Now, I'm in Sweden and I'm in the process of budget planning for my next film. I'm rather certain that we'll get a budget around 30 000$ for this one. It's a short film, and it's going to be shot on Plus-X 16mm stock. Now, the song Drum thunder suite by Art Blakey would be sooooo perfect for the opening sequence. I know exactly how many seconds I'm going to use (46). And so on and so forth.. The label that gave out Art Blakey's record Moanin' (which the song is on) are Blue notes records. I'm in Sweden and it's literally impossible to get in touch with either Blue Notes Records or Art Blakey's music estate. I'm happy to pay them almost whatever to use this freaking song. Well, I really don't know what I'm getting at here. Does anybody have a clue if it's even feasable for me to think about using a song from such a established (but dead) jazz artist? Man o man I hate this beaurocratic side of making films. It's exhausting!

Is it good to overexpose Black and white negs? I've heard that it's better just to nail the exposure?

This thread obviously want's to be polemic, otherwise he wouldn't have written "BEST FOR PORN" with giant capital letters. Well, that set aside I don't see why people get so anxious about a person asking for advice on how to shoot porn. I mean, what's it to you? You don't have to watch it nor read this thread if it makes you uncomfortable. I won't venture my own personal oppinion regarding porn because it wouldn't be very helpful nor would it be anything else than trying to tow the "nice guy" line and say how disgraceful it is. If your serious about the "best camera for porn?" question, then I would go for a lightweight 16mm camera like the Eclair NPR. And go for a washed out desaturated look with some expired Ektachrome, probably wouldn't be cost feasible for a porn-flick, but at least then you would get some hardcore experimental, porn. Too much mainstream, ugly and uncreative porn floating about. Try something new. /Hampus

Hey people, I'm in the process of storyboarding a script that I just finished. I have it all visualized in my head, but since my drawing abilities are sub-par I'm thinking of doing a storyboard with still photos for reference. The film is going to be shot in super16 and with Plus-X negative film. I know the issue of the low ASA on Plus-X but I'm going to make it work because I love the look of it. And I'm going for a pretty low-key lightning so... Anyway, is there any stillfilm that would SORT OF be equal to 16mm Plus-X in grain, density and all that stuff that matters for the specific look of a stock? I know that there's a Plus-X in still films aswell, is this the same principle? Thanks in advance, All the best, Hampus

Hey, rather than making a new thread I'm just going to ask a similar question. You have to excuse me, Andy, but any answer I get might help you aswell. So; I'm going to shoot some super16 b/w, and I'm going for a DI since the festival which I'm applying for doesn't need a print. I've recieved a few ominous advise about how you should not use reversal if you are going for a print, but since I'm not, is it okay to use Tri-X reversal for a "serious" film? I've looked at quite a few samples of both Plus-X neg, Double-X neg, Tri-X reversal and I have to say that I pretty much prefer the look of Tri-X reversal. But these samples were low-quality youtube clips and I can't even begin to imagine that they do any justice at all to the stocks in question.

Sorry to go of on a tangent from the threads original question, but I'm thinking of shooting a s16mm short with Tri-X. So Saul, what's the benefit of cross-processing reversal B/W stocks? If I would try that, is there anything that I need to know? Cheers

First, thank you for an elaborate answer. More to the point, I see what you mean David but I've watched most of the movies I'm reffering to on a 35mm print in Stockholms art-house cinema. Of course, different prints might be old and badly stored, I couldn't tell you. The thing is, almost ALL asian films I've watched have this kind of washed-out blacks and smoky quality. Maybe it's the humidity in asia! Whatever the reason, I'll try some of the things you proposed David, with a little luck I might just stumble upon something personal rather than copying Doyle and Kar-Wai's look. Thanks again everybody

No rush, that you're even trying to help me out is enough. But do you see what I mean? Because it's pretty subtle, and I don't know if those pictures describe it. It's something about Asian cinema tough.

Haha! No offense, well a little actually because my english is (in my mind) pretty good. I don't think it's my english, but rather my lack of understanding the technical procedures. You see, I'm usually a director. But I understand if it seems that I'm being really incoherent, and that's because I don't know what it is I want! Until now! Here's some samples of what I had in mind, I've managed to secure shooting in 35 so no worries on that. Theres obviously something about asian cinema in the look that I want; Kar-Wai uses it, Takashi Miike uses it and several other asian films like Ahn Trung's Cyclo: I can't really descibe the look, it'll help if any of you guys have seen something by Kar-Wai, Days of Being Wild specifically. It's like the colours are a bit washed out, so describing them as saturated was obviously wrong. I'll be using a double fog filter for starters, but I don't think it'll do. Hope you can help now! Cheers Edit: I've heard something about asian cinematographers use of AGFA-film, and there might be something of this look in that stock. I've checked out some photos on flick'r with expired AGFA-stock and they seem to, kind of, almost visualize what I'm looking for. See, it's hard for me to describe it because I would say that it's a subtle effect that seems to be present in almost all of asian cinema during the nineties.