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.

While religions fall in and out of popularity (just ask Zoroaster), religion goes on. We have an unanswered, built-in capacity for something vague that is often addressed by religions. Call it Divine, God, Heaven or any out of the pile of names available in hundreds of languages and dialects. We (humans in general, that is) seem to be stuck with it.

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.

I am fascinated though by the fact that this religious debate, like you said, just won't go away. You'd think if the issues were clear, we'd have sorted this one out a few thousand years ago. Instead, we've been to the moon and back, landed or crashed multi million dollar probes on various remote planets, launched the first known orbiting glue gun, figured out some fantastic new ways to kill each other and just as spectacular ways to repair each other.. but we are still arguing about this thing called God.

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.

My point, guys, is this. Pick up Blaine Brown's Cinematography book. Open to page 51. Let's pick a sentence. How about this one: "The essential point is the focus as a storytelling tool." Page 128: "Visible light is only produced when an electron falls into the second shell of an atom." Page ix: "To a great extent the knowledge base of the cinematographer overlaps with the knowledge base of the director."

Now, if I'm an amateur cinematographer, will these three verses suffice for my understand of cinematography as a whole. Hardly. Are all of these sentences true? Yes. But it doesn't help me understand the context and application of what's being said. What would you suggest me do instead? Maybe read the whole thing. A couple of times, maybe. If I really want to know about it and be able to discuss it with you guys. Maybe take some classes. Maybe practice it...

I'm not suggesting that anyone here necessarily even wants to know more about Christianity. All I am saying is that, if you want to know what Anna Karenina is about, you read Anna Karenina! All of it.

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.

You are free to not believe in God and even free to say it. All day long, if it pleases you. But to say that God is a megalomaniac douche bag is just plain ignorance. The description of God (according to all descriptions in the Bible) cannot back up such a base judgement.

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.

I can tell you Art Blakey estate is run by his eldest daughter Evelyn Blakey. She lives in NYC. I dont have a current number for her but she has been living in the same apt in Alphabet City since before Art passed. If you find her give her my name, I played with her a few times and hung out at her place in 95-96

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!

Tom,

 

Use a longer lens... go to 68mm... that will help 'soften' your BG and give you the 'illusion' of a sharper Image.

 

Overexpose 2/3 to One Full Stop.

 

Always 'Tape' focus and check that with an 'Eye' focus.

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.

Yeah Fran, those stocks are somewhat to notoriously grainy in 35mm format, maybe they even look THAT grainy to begin with when shot in 16mm. I have not shot them, being that I LOVE reversal B/W stocks, cross processed they look great. However I have seen old and newer 35mm movies shot with them and I don't recall thinking of them as grainy. Maybe the grain really explodes on 16 mm and smaller formats.

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

Trouble is that when people discuss the look of Wong Kar Wai's movies, they are often describing video transfers watched on DVD, which adds another layer of interpretation, plus hardly anyone's TV set matches another person's. Plus many Hong Kong movies are transferred from old prints of mediocre quality.

 

Top that with all the experimentation in those movies, both in an optical printer (meaning the footage has been duped a couple of generations) and in camera with filters, film stocks, etc.

 

Some of those movies were shot on Agfa XT320 color negative stock, no longer made. The closest today would be to shoot Fuji F-400T overexposed. Other movies were shot on Fuji F-250T stock. Some were shot on Kodak stock.

 

Some of those movies used diffusion filters, particularly ProMist filters.

 

Some of those movies underexposed and push-processed the negative.

 

Add to that colored lighting, etc. so there is hardly one look to these movies, even in a single movie. "Happy Together" is all over the map, image-wise. So is "Fallen Angels" -- the look varies all the time.

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.

Yeah, I agree Dave.

 

Hampus, don't take this the wrong way, but do you have a buddy that speaks better English that could post here? No offense intended, just we're having difficulty understanding your intentions.

 

Also I'd assume you don't have the budget to do a big film. Give us an idea if this is S8, 16, video, or waht that you're trying to get to look saturated or smoky. Those two are opposites of one-another, you know.

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.