Hampus Bystrom

Well, maybe the books needn't be just about these specific directors. But does anybody know a cinematography book which uses a lot of examples from existing films? (preferebly indie and more "arty" films.

Yeah, and I love the film-theory books on Kubrick. His stories are always full of things to interpret and make a fuzz about. But I also love his aesthetic style, and I find it (like you say) surprising that there aren't more on his visual thinking. Cheers, that's a great idea, I think I'll check into what ACM has to say.

Just before I make a fool out of myself; what is the difference between Super16 and 16mm?

Hey cinematographers, I've just checked out the "recommended books"-category and read quite a few. But now I was curious about books that elaborately discribe specific directors (and their cinematographers) take on lightning and processing and so forth. Now I really like the style of Kubrick, the Coens, Fassbinder, Fellini and Wong Kar-Wai. I've seen almost all of their movies and really love the cinematography on Barry Lyndon for example. I would love some litterature that deals with maybe a specific movie of theirs, and maybe some talk with their cinematographers, gaffers, crew et.c. If there are some just holler! Cheers!

Thanks everybody! Well, I guess everybody has made their points. It's a matter of trial and error to get the kind of look that you want. But I'll check out your suggestions and see what gives me the most satisfying reslut. More grain is not a problem. I find it hard to use Pro Mist without the Sunset Beach-look. Cheers! Really appriciate it

Thanks matt, There's no way I can afford 35mm tough. It's going to be a serious project, absolutely, but I'm a relatively new director and filmmaker and so the budget are limited to 16mm. I also don't think I'll shoot with Fuji stocks, because Kodak are probably going to sponsor us. Almost forgot that there are other companies who manufacture film. Sorry, but what do you mean by printing up? I'll probably have the negatives scanned to hardrive, rather than printed. So you think underexposing will give me those kind of muddy blacks? Won't that ruin details for me? Oh well I gues I have to comprimise somewhere. Again, cheers.

Cheers Dave, yeah I think I'll push the film for saturation. So you think the look is more a lightning matter? But what about the "muddy", almost greyish blacks? That's something that you can achieve in post maybe?

If I'm asking a totally ridiculous question, please enlight me.

Hey! For my next film I would like to create a smokey, saturated look. Pretty much like Kar-Wai often creates, "Chungking Express" for an example: I guess to get that saturation you would have to push the film at least two stops? I will probably use a lot of low-key lightning. What's the best film stock for this look? (16mm) If you want another example, Takashi Miike uses this look in Odishion aswell:

Also, I've been meaning to ask you guys; I have four filters on my lens; one UV-filter, one 85B Filter, one Polarization filter and one ND8-filter. How much should I compensate for these filters? Now I know that the ND8-filter reduces light by (circa) three f/stops. But what about the 85B-filter, the UV filter and polarization filter? Does these need any compensating? I'm using these filter's when filming outside these days in the summer when my incident light meter measures f/stop 32 or something. So what f-stop should I set the camera to if I take all these filters into considiration and my incident light meter measures 32? Last week I shot some B/W reversal with my polirization filter and my UV-filter. The weather was far from satisfying and was often changing from cloudy to extremely sunny and the f-stop was sometimes 32, 22 or 16. I set my cameras aperture to 22 (max) and just went nuts. Do you think this will come out okay or completely useless? Cheers!

1. Mulholland Drive (David Lynch) 2. Il Conformista (Bertolucci) 3. Happy Together (Wong Kar-Wai) 4. No Country for Old Men (Coen brothers) 5. The Bitter Tears of Petra Von Kant (Fassbinder) No perticular order really, and it probably changes from week to week. There's a lot of movies that I love, but these seem to awake something abstract and unusual in me. My own Private Idaho (Gus Van Sant) maybe should be there aswell, with or without Keanu Reeves. Really don't like that guy.

Yeah, can't afford it tough. But I'm sure I've seen 200T viewed with a fair amount of grain on a pretty big screen. This is such a hard question to ask because it's entirely subjective. But I guess I'll just try and project (trough a computer) my newly processed 200T when it's scanned and all ready with the optimal settings.

I mean the grain of super8, I mean I love grain to some extent but when watching the telecine on a fairly big screen it really is too much. But I don't know if this test-film is a good reference because I really shot it without knowledge of the camera. My new test-film which just got processed will be a much better test, because it was shot with incident light meter and gray-cards and the whole chabang.

By the way, does "prepping" a film for telecine enhance the quality noticeably?

Hi guys, I'm quite ashamed of using you eminent cinematographers help so promiscuously with stupid questions. But I hope you don't mind that much. Maybe in a perfect world somewhere down the line I can get the opportunity to help you. Anyways, so I'm shooting a timelapse with my Super-8 camera of a sunrise. And my internal lightmeter is not functioning so I can't take a spot measure. I have a external light meter (the minolta IV F, a great little tool) and was wondering if there's anyway possible that I can get the exposure correct for the sky only? That is, I don't even care if the sorroundings gets horribly underexposed, I would actually prefer if the sorroundings were almost black. I myself can't think of any way to achieve this so I'm just inquiring on what you guys would have done? Cheers, all help appriciated!

I can't edit my posts for some reason but I have a Schneider 1,4 6-70mm Zoom lens fitted onto my Beaulieu.

http://www.footprintsecurity.com.au/info_a...s_of_a_lens.php Doesnt look to hard? But I don't know how to do it since I don't think my camera has a back focus ring.

Yeah I was trying to edit my post with more info but it looks like it didn't work. Anyway, it was my first ever Super8 digital transfer, and I didn't know what to expect. Other than I didn't want it to be an .avi-file burned onto a DVD, which I told them. That's exactly what they did, so I guess I won't be using that place for scanning my films anymore. The monitor was actually just my computer screen, I played the .avi-file with VLC and just made it fill the screen. I know this probably wasn't the optimal thing to do. But it was just a test-clip and looked pretty good anyway. Here it is if you want to see: http://www.vimeo.com/929038 It does look good in this small format but if you scale it up to fill the screen it quickly looks horrible.

Yeah, I just wanted to inquire if there were any means to achieve really wide-angle with Super8. But this will do. On another completely different question, do any of you guys know if the Beaulieu 6008S has a "back focus ring"? I'm not even sure what back focus is but I've heard that you always should adjust it. The back focus ring is not the ring for adjusting the eye-piece after my eyes is it?

Cheers, I really appriciate so much help. Well, what's the effects of "pushing" or "pulling" the film then? More grain? Less grain? When I say "best quality possible", I guess I mean without the film looking "pixilated" due to the scanning of the film. I scanned a film recently and I loved the way it looked, but when I tried playing the film on a "21 inch monitor it looked very pixilated. We are going to pick out a location which works for playing films, so no worries there.

Yeah, we've sort of passed that question already. I don't know that much about lenses so all I knew was that it said "wide-angle lens". But it's for 16mm and my zoom Schneider lens goes as wide as 6mm so.

Hm, what about a wide-angle adapter? Would this look terrible? I have a schneider lens right now which I like but I find it kind of hard to focus, but that's probably due to my inexperience rather than the lens. Could someone please link to a film/stills on different lenses? I mean what's the essential benefits of most Angenieux lenses contrary to the Schneider ones? Cheers!

What's the benefits of pulling alt. pushing the film? And how does one really do this? I would like the films to stay in as good quality as possible, because I'm going to play them in an art-exhibition. How would you recommend that I show the films? I'm not playing them all in order on one screen, but rather on different screens in different parts of the location which we're renting. (That's kind of fuzzy, hope you understand what I'm getting at.) So even if playing the films directly on a projector reassures the bets quality, this would not be possible because I would have to get like 6-10 different Super8-projectors. Digitalizing the films are most convenient, but I'm not sure if the quality would be tolerable on 19" monitors? Hope you have the time to answer my questions! Really appriciate it mate!

Hey guys, I've just finished my Super8-cartridge (Vision2 200T) and I've taken really careful notes on F-stop, FPS and ASA and what kinds of filter I've used and so forth. This film is going to be our reference on how to film our big and serious project, we have filmed tests with different lightning, ASA, filters F-stops and over/under-exposing. Could these notes help either the lab or the teleciner when processing/scanning the film? I've heard alot about how serious dp's always shoot test-shots and take careful notes for the lab to use. Thanks!

Alright! Cheers for the answers guys, I probably won't buy it then because I had a really wide lens in mind. Well, you learn something new every day. Yeah it's 16mm which probably would be a stupid choice seeing how my Schneider lens have 6mm-70mm.