Bryce Lansing

Your question is a bit confusing, are you asking if you can shoot a scene digitally with only 6 stops, then shoot a screen of that footage with film to get more DR?

I have thought about using the Reala 500D. I used it on a short for some day interiors I lit with HMIs. I've always heard that you get more contrast (and like you said, lose latitude), with push processing. Then someone else told me, you get less contrast by pushing (I thought you get less contrast by pulling?). My question is, if it gains contrast through push processing, and I push process a VIVID stock, which has more contrast, would I start getting too contrasty? If I wanted to shoot an Eterna stock, would I be better off just shooting the regular 500t than the vivid 500t? I'm watching a scene I shot on Regular 16mm with regular Eterna 500t, and I love the look, but i'd like to get some more grain over the exposed areas. I know I can do this by underexposing a little, but I hate the look of a thin negative brought up in telecine. I'd like to have the look of a thick neg, but grain on the midtones (exactly what I've gotten with 800 ASA still film). If I push process 1-2 stops, will I still have that well exposed look of a thick neg, but add grain to my midtones? and How much more contrast would it add to the regular Eterna 500t?

I'm shooting a music video with a "horror theme", and the Director wants it to have a gritty/grainy look to it. We're shooting Super 16 on an Arri SR3 with Zeiss superspeeds. I want the sharpest image we can get with super 16, but I don't want it looking too clean. I want a MORE grainy look than what I get with Eterna 500T on regular 16mm. I was thinking push processing a stop or two should do the trick, but I was warned that push processing is riskier with 16mm than with 35mm. I'm used to regular Eterna 500T, but I was considering shooting Eterna VIVID 500T. I know it's higher contrast, but if I push it 1-2 stops, will it give it too much contrast?

I have shot some Reala 500D, and now that you mention it, it was pretty grainy. I'd like to stick to a tungsten stock because we have access to free tungsten lighting (we'll have to pay to rent HMIs). I could go with the 80C filter and compensate the rest in telecine, but how do you think Eterna 500T pushed two stops would look compared to the Reala with an 80C pushed one stop?

I'm shooting a music video with a "horror theme", and the Director wants it to have a gritty/grainy look to it. I know I can get the look he wants just with my regular 16mm bolex, but I figure since we have the budget for a full SR3 package with zeiss primes, why not? I want the sharpest image we can get with super 16, but I'm afraid of it looking too clean. I want sharpness of the bigger frame and the better lenses, but I want a MORE grainy look than what I get with 500T on regular 16mm. I'm thinking push processing should do the trick, but how many stops should I try? Also, I like what I get from Fuji Eterna 500T, but was considering the Eterna VIVID 500T. I know it's higher contrast and higher saturation, but will push processing it give it too much contrast?

As for the PL mount, I know it's the best option, but even if I got a 2C with a PL mount, there's no way I could afford even the cheapest Angenieux zoom, let alone a good set of Zeiss primes. I'd like to have at least three primes... So for sure I won't be disappointed with the results of Arri Standard Mount primes? I don't want to go through all the trouble of buying a 35mm camera, spending more on film/processing, then end up with slightly soft results that aren't much sharper than my Bolex 16mm or HVX200 footage. I know old Arri Standard mount lenses can't match a set of PL mount Cooke S4 primes or anything, but will they at least blow me away from what I'm used to with my HVX/Letus/Nikon set up?

I've decided to buy a used Arri IIC pretty soon, but I'm having trouble deciding which route to go for mount/lenses. I've got full set of Nikon primes (16, 24, 35, 50, 85, 105) that all give me sharp images when shooting 35mm photos. I can get a IIC at a decent price, and have the mount converted to Nikon, and I'll be ready to shoot. My other option would be to wait for a IIC package with a few Arri Standard mount lenses. I've heard they're not the sharpest, possibly less sharp than the Nikons, but they have the advantage of being Cine lenses that were built for the camera. I'm buying this camera mostly for the purpose of shooting tests, getting familiar with 35mm workflow, practicing, and occasionally shooting low budget work that may be able to afford 35mm, but not a package rental. For my purposes, what would be the best way to go?

I'm planning to buy an Arri IIC soon, and am hoping to convert it to a Nikon mount. Does anyone know of anywhere in the Los Angeles area that does the conversion? If so, about how much will it cost me? Also, what about Super35 conversion? How much would that cost?

I'm shooting a music video this week, and the director wants this feel: What filter do I need to use to get that horizontal stream across the frame when shining directly into the backlights? It almost looks like the effect of a star filter, but without the vertical line. And I'm guessing Par 64s should work as the backlights?

Is there anywhere in LA that gives out free 100' daylight spools for 16mm film?

I too have a background in 35mm photography, and have started to shoot motion picture film. I have a bolex 16mm camera, so it may differ slightly from your S8, but as far as exposure, it should be the similar. When shooting stills, I always get good results from my spot meter. Even when I take my spot reading on a light skin tone without opening up, it's still good. My incident readings give me shots that look at least a stop over exposed. On my Bolex, it was rather different. The shots I exposed with an incident reading looked perfect, and the ones I took from a spot reading looked under exposed. I don't know why this is, but after my first test, I now know to always go off my incident reading, even if my spot reading is telling me to stop down two more stops. I use the same meter for both, a Sekonic 608 cine meter. For the photos I use the normal shutterspeeds, for the Bolex I used the frame rate (24fps) that I was shooting at, and the shutter angle 110 degrees (133 degree bolex shutter minus the 1/3 stop taken from the prism).

Before getting my Bolex, I read a lot about the complications of the distance of the lens to the prism. I read that RX lenses will be fine, but any non-reflex lenses used shouldn't be opened up past f4, or they will get soft results. So I got my Bolex and my Nikon to C-mount adapter, hooked up my nikon lenses, shot a test, and sure enough, problems only at 2.8, 2, and 1.4! Today I noticed that when I focus the lens to infinity, everything is soft. I have to pull the focus back to get infinity in focus. So I unscrewed the C-mount to nikon adapter slightly, pushing the distance of the Nikon lens a few millimeters farther, and found that the infinity was now focused at infinity. Now it seems like this is the answer, Just pushing the lens out a bit and changing the mounting distance is solving the problem. But I'm shooting 2500 feet of film on my friend's short (budgeted by him), and I cannot let any shots go soft, or I'm in big trouble. I don't have time/money for another test roll, so I'm a little scared to just say "problem solved", and shoot his whole film with the mount slightly unscrewed based on what I see through the viewfinder. With the mount screwed all the way in, I have sharp results at f4 and up (as shown by tests), should I just shoot the whole film with the mount screwed all the way, and stay at f4 and above to be safe? Or should I shoot the film with the lens mount out?

I'm shooting a student film on my Bolex/Nikon lenses. But my widest lens is a 16mm, and I need to rent at least a 10mm lens. I was originally looking at Alan Gordon in Hollywood, but the producer told me today that they charge a $500 deposit for the $25 rental. His budget has no room for an extra $500. Is there anywhere else in Los Angeles that doesn't charge a deposit?

Thanks for the tips guys! Here was my test: http://vimeo.com/7149130 Its weird because the scratch only goes on for the first 45 seconds, and it moves to different sections of the frame. Then it reappears slightly at 1:19 through 1:39, then it's gone for the rest of the roll. I assumed it was the dust, because the scratch and it's position was so inconsistent, and sometimes not even there.

My first test roll showed dust scratches and other imperfections within the first half of the roll. I didn't clean it well enough before loading. Does anyone have any specific cleaning tips on how to prevent this dust or scratched film? I know about pulling aside the prism and blowing air through the shutter, but where else and how else should I clean?

The actual GG is in the right place, but could it be something in the viewfinder? Also, what is the blue streak that keeps appearing on the left side? Is that a result of the motor starting up? I only see it at the beginning of each shot. And why is it blue? Not quite as flattering as the orange marks I've seen on other Bolex footage.

I found a filter on eBay listed as "Diffusion #2 filter", but I'm confused, is this the same filter as a "Soft FX #2 filter"? If not, what is different?

Thanks for the tips Chris! I'll try the flashlight trick

I'm shooting a short film in about a month on my Bolex, I did a camera test, and the results were pretty good other than a few soft shots open past f2.8 (I'm using a Nikon to C-mount adapter and Nikon lenses). I'm a little worried because the frame that shows up on my viewfinder is off center and cut off a little bit. Its not really a problem because I'm gonna crop to 16x9 anyway, but I wanted to know if this was normal, or if something like this may be a sign of further issues in the viewfinder that may throw off my focus. I don't have money to get it checked before the shoot, so I hope everything will be fine. It looks kind of like this:

Really?? How do you know the steps to converting it yourself? My dad is a machinist, so he might be able to do it for me if I can find the steps for him. What about the groundglass? Do you have to replace the entire prism with GG on top? Or is there a way to replace just the GG?

It's got a variable shutter and has the spool ejector as well (although a friend told me that was an extra that may have been added). To be honest, it could be a Rex-2 or Rex-3, I'm just basing it off the fact that it has a 6x Viewfinder, so I'm assuming its a Rex-1. I've been looking at Rex-5s on ebay, but so far I haven't been able to find one.

Ok thanks guys!

When I got my Bolex test back from telecine, I noticed that the full frame scan showed a little bit of the sprocket holes on the left side. Part of the image was actually cut off by the holes. I checked the Bolex with a dummy roll and sure enough, I see the sprocket holes through the aperture. This isn't a problem now, because when I crop to 16:9, I'm cropping out the top and bottom of it anyway. But I was concerned about if I decided to convert to Super 16, and will need most of the frame when I transfer to 16:9. Is this normal?

I have a Bolex Rex-1, and I've run film through it, transfered, and I'm very pleased with the results. No problems. I really want to convert it to Super-16 and have a 14x ViewFinder put in, but I was wondering if there was any other mechanical reason to get a Rex-5 and convert that instead. For instance, Is a Rex-1 converted to Super16 with a 14x VF, and a Rex-5 converted to Super16 with a 14x VF any different from each other? Other than the fact that the Rex-5 can take magazines?

Heres some frames: 16mm f2.8 lens, f2.8, pretty sharp. 24mm f2.8 lens, f2.8, soft 24mm f2.8 lens, f2.8 1/2, soft 50mm f1.2 lens, f2.8 1/2, very sharp 16mm f2.8 lens, f8, sharp The only thing I can think of is that the 16mm and the 24mm lenses don't perform well at 2.8, because that is their open aperture. The 50mm performs very well at 2.8, but it's open aperture is 1.2. But what confuses me is the first shot with the 16mm at f2.8 is not soft.