Dimitri Zaunders

Since I'm a student (read: cheap), I always load and unload the Scoopic in a changing bag to get the most out of my film stock. Realistically the 15-20 feet you'll fog is only worth a couple of dollars, plus the rolls are generally a bit longer than 100ft to compensate, but still...did I mention I'm cheap?

I had low expectations clicking on the link, but it completely made my day! Absolute genius.

Awesome! I love the ABC's Wednesday 9pm comedies and I've been seriously missing them since I left home, I'm so glad this is available online!!

Just keep in mind that CTB knocks a huge amount of light output from each light, so unless you have really powerful lights to begin with, you're going to have trouble getting enough light for your desired exposure!

I've looked over the Canon Scoopic that I'm going to be shooting on and thankfully it has both a behind-the-lens filter slot as well as a 72mm thread for glass filters. I understand that the benefit of using a filter behind the lens is that it doesn't reduce light to the eyepiece (and critical focus on the Scoopic eyepiece is hard enough already without having next to no light to see with). But I've also heard that there can be serious problems in terms of gel filters throwing off focus... Maybe I should stick with filters in front of the lens? Tiffen makes a 72mm low contrast filter, although I'm not sure if I can get a hold of one in time. I'm not game to try stockings or glass with vaseline in front of the lens without testing the results, anything else I can try which is less risky? Thanks again for the responses, I'm taking everything on board that people are suggesting and trying to think through my options. Please keep them coming!

Thanks again for all the responses! Unfortunately I'm stuck with a Canon Scoopic 16M for this project, which makes any kind of filter difficult. Thanks for the suggestions though Freya, I've particularly always wanted to try the trick with the nylon stockings but it won't be possible with this camera :( I'm interested in trying to achieve this effect through processing, which from what I can tell isn't as expensive as everyone is warning me. I called Fotokem and they will pull process up to 3 stops for only a couple more cents per foot (maybe this is student pricing though, which explains why the cost is so reasonable?). This particularly appeals to me because I've taken meter readings at my location at the time of day we'll be shooting and even after rating my 250D stock at 40 (2 2/3 stops over) I'm still going to be shooting at f/11. It's unfortunate because I have no ND filters and I was hoping to shoot close to wide open for a fairly narrow depth of field, but even with the pull processing buying me an extra 2 stops I'm still a long way from where I want to be... Maybe my best bet would be to overexpose 2 stops and pull only one, leaving me with a denser negative which will be timed in the telecine to a grey card? I'm curious about the ability to adjust contrast in post too, although I've always learnt that it's best to achieve the effect on the negative. How easily can contrast be played with in post production? At the moment I'm hoping to go to HDCam but I don't know if my budget will allow it, are the benefits of HD for Regular 16mm worth it? We will only be finishing on a DVD to start with, but I'd like to release it in HD on the web or send it to festivals at some point.

Thanks Alex! I really hope that 7207 is a fairly low contrast stock too, like always I don't have the luxury of being able to shoot tests so all I can do is cross my fingers and hope it turns out the way I want it to :( And I really wish I could try flashing, I've always wanted to and I hope one day I'll get the chance. I think it would have been great for this project but I wouldn't dare risk it without shooting tests, which sadly isn't possible for this project. So am I on the right track with two stops of overexposure? I was also hoping to overexpose an additional 2/3 stop, as I remember David Mullen saying that the benefits of overexposing for a denser negative are mitigated by pulling, which means I would need to expose a further 2/3 on top of what I already intended. Does this sound right? I'm hoping for a rather extreme effect, so I'm not so much concerned about it being too much as I am about it being not enough to be noticeable.

Hi all, I've got a 16mm shoot coming up soon and I'm hoping to achieve a really low contrast, milky image that is somewhat similar to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1JESxoI7to I was also really influenced by Darius Khondji's incredibly underrated work on 'Cheri', which was stunning. Anyway I read in the AC article on 'Cheri' (July 09) that he achieved his look partly through overexposing and then pulling stops. Considering that I will be shooting outdoors in fairly high contrast exteriors, and will be shooting on Kodak Vision 3 250D (rather than the low contrast Fuji Eterna 400T that Khondji used), can I expect a similar result? Sadly I don't have access to other tools that would help, such as atmospheric haze or low contrast filters, am I going about this the best way to achieve the look I'm after? Thanks in advance for any and all help you can provide!

Thanks again Saul, you're completely right about the need to shoot tests to know for sure. As a student I wish I could convince others that shooting tests is necessary, but sadly it's already hard enough to even convince people to shoot on film in the first place!

Thanks for the reply Saul. I've seen this question come up a couple of times since I came here, and I've come across it in the archives a few times too. But unless I'm mistaken I don't think a consensus has ever been reached about whether the standard practice of overexposing is still a good idea when you plan to telecine rather than make prints. I've seen a few people recommend it anyway, but is this just a case of old habits dying hard or do the benefits such as tightening grain structure and retaining detail in the shadows still apply?

I've heard from a number of sources, such as in the great book 'Film Lighting' by Kris Malkiewicz, that it's generally best to overexpose negative for a denser, 'healthier' negative. But is this always the case? When I asked him today about it, my cinematography professor said that this only applied when you intended to make prints, and that today when digitizing film there is no benefit to overexposing. So is there any truth to this? I'm shooting a short next weekend and I had intended to overexpose 2/3 stop, now I'm not so sure.

The strangest part is that it doesn't exactly fit with other things I've heard about the shooting of Inglourious Basterds. In last year's American Cinematographer article Robert Richardson talked about how Tarantino keeps a really quiet, respectful set (for example the entire crew have to turn in their cell phones before starting work) in order to help the actors concentrate. So I don't see how this fits with that philosophy! although it is absolutely hilarious. The best part is glimpsing Robert Richardson himself at 1:12. What a legend.

Yeah reversal is fun but unforgiving, although I'm really looking forward to shooting some colour reversal in the near future! I'm envious that you have the resources to shoot and scan 1200 feet of negative film though, the results are just stunning. Actually I just realised that you are the same Elliot who posted the Bolex test footage that I absolutely fell in love with a while back. Vimeo seems to have deleted all my old 'likes', but I swear that your Chicago footage may have been the first video I ever saved to my favourites. Incredible stuff, I love your work! And now I'm curious about your custom lens adapter, it sounds a lot more advanced than mine. Would you happen to know if they make them for OM mount lenses?

Wow, this is absolutely beautiful! I can't believe you got such great images out of your Bolex, I'm yet to shoot anything more than B&W reversal because I can't really afford all the stock/telecine costs right now, but you've given me hope that one day I can produce something anywhere near as incredible as this!! Out of interest, how many feet of film did you have to shoot off to end up with so much great material? I would imagine your shooting ratio would have to have been really high to end up with so many great images! One other thing: what's your experience with using the Canon FD mount lenses on the Bolex? I bought an adapter to attach my old Olympus 35mm SLR lenses to my Bolex but so far I've been too afraid to shoot anything in case the focus is off or the aperture doesn't set itself properly while filming (I've noticed on my SLR that the aperture doesn't close down until a photo is taken, at which point the camera body seems to control the iris). Have you ever had any problems, or is it just a case of attach it and forget about it?

What amazes me most is that people would consider directing and DPing the same project. Being on set and lighting a film is such an involved artistic process that I can't imagine ever having the time to turn to the actors and look after that entire side of things as well...I can appreciated the creative freedom and control that taking both jobs would provide, but when I think of actually having to split my concentration between two such different aspects of filmmaking simultaneously - well, I'd want a damn good gaffer and camera crew on my side, that's for sure.