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.

Karl, I agree with almost everything you said (except for the part where you said you liked Avatar, I thought it was a complete waste of time and money for a film that had absolutely nothing to say). But if you're going to get technical, 'cinematography' translates to 'writing with motion'. Sure, a cinematographer is also a Director of Photography (which DOES translates to 'writing with light') but the actual award of Best Cinematography doesn't explicitly say anything about photography.

I think their numbering system is even less intuitive than that! Some of the Kodak stocks I've been shooting recently are 7265 and 7266 - B&W reversal stocks. Even worse, their 8mm stocks also begin with the numbers 72!!

I don't know who this is meant to be directed at, but I don't think anyone in this thread has expressed that sentiment! Satsuki, I think that I have had exactly the same experience in film school that you had. I was so excited to learn that there was a single job title that perfectly encapsulated everything I loved about film making, and to then go off and discover that there were worldwide societies for cinematographers, online communities such as this one and various publications and other resources - well, it's inspiring. Anyway, I've gathered from all the feedback that aspirations to direct are quite common amongst cinematographers. I guess in a way I've even come to realise that I'm quite the hypocrite, as Adrian's description of a visual short that he would have to direct sounds like a lot of the projects that I'm always running through in my mind. I've never thought of it as directing, more as something a still photographer might undertake under their own steam, but now that you put it that way I guess there are stories that I would want to direct. One other thing I'm curious about (although I know it's hard to generalize about such things), but do DPs tend to make good directors?

Thanks again to everyone for all the great discussion. David and Adrian, I know exactly what you mean. When I was much younger, I obviously knew nothing about the realities of film making except that I wanted to be involved in them - and therefore, had to be a director! But I've really loved this long process of introspection in the years since I left high school, in which I've come to understand what it is about films that I love so much, and what I see myself doing for the rest of my life. But still, I guess my problem is that I'm fixated on this romantic notion of the cinematographer who comes to film through a love of photography and the visual arts, rather than someone who takes up the duty of photography out of necessity or as a means to an end (an eventual directing job). I definitely don't think there's anything wrong with the latter (and obviously many talented DPs, such as Mr Mullen, have fallen into cinematography almost by chance) but it still feels like a slap in the face to hear from DPs in my own peer group that it's not REALLY what they want to be doing... For those of you who have fulfilled both roles (Richard I'm looking especially at you!) why DID you decide to direct? I know that these two jobs certainly have a lot in common (and David I would completely agree that a DP is first and foremost a storyteller, something definitely shared with a director) but I still feel like they are such thoroughly different jobs. Is it possible to happen to be in love with both, or is one always a kind of secondary occupation? Oh and Brian I would completely agree about just wanting to DP that one masterpiece. I think that that's what appeals to me most about cinematography as opposed to directing, which is the freedom to endlessly reinvent yourself between projects, moving from script to script and style to style in a way that very few feature film directors would ever be able to do.

Thanks for all the input! I guess I can understand that need to direct your own project when you feel that no one else can or will. As a cinematographer just starting out, I guess I live in the naive hope that eventually I will fall into a partnership with a visionary director or two who will bring out the best in my work, but the feeling I get is that this doesn't always happen, and that sometimes you need to just direct your own films out of disillusionment with the quality of the directors you meet... What still really puzzles me though is the fact that so many people (even the esteemed David Mullen ASC!) fall into cinematography accidentally after wanting to be a director. And many talented DPs I meet on graduate student films or low budget music videos describe themselves as directors just using cinematography as a stepping stone in their directing career! I'm glad to hear from David Auner that there are others like me who are interested only in cinematography, but by the sounds of it we are a fairly rare bunch?

I've been noticing an odd trend lately, and I'm wondering what everyone else's opinion is... Lately after talking to a lot of talented DPs that I've met or crewed for, I've noticed that many have confided in me that what they REALLY want to do is direct. I even found out the other day that my cinematography teacher at school, who is a really knowledgeable and talented guy, is actually mostly a director who will more often than not hire a DP to shoot his commercials for him. I know that there has always been a lot of crossover between the role of director and DP, with many high profile DPs going on to direct their own projects (Chris Doyle, Nicholas Roeg and Jan de Bont being just a few of many examples) while other high profile directors often shoot their own projects (Steven Soderbergh etc). Still, I've always considered the roles diametrically opposed, dating back to the traditional separation of duties where a director was essentially an actor who looked after the performances of the rest of the cast, while a DP was essentially a technician. I'm just really curious whether I'm the only person who's 100% focused on cinematography without having an interest in writing or directing my own projects. Is it just a coincidence that so many people I've spoken to really just want to direct, or is this really common among cinematographers??

Will do, thanks for the tip!! Most recently I was impressed by Elswit's work on Good Night and Good Luck, anyone happen to know if American Cinematographer ran a feature on his work on that film?

Oh really?? Having access to the digital AND the hard copy would be the best of both worlds, I'll have to look into it! Anyway for anyone keenly following my ongoing search for the February issue, at the ASC Open House today I picked up free copies of the past 4 months' issues (plus a couple of random issues from 2007 and 2008). Best day ever!

Ah, makes sense. My old GL2 prosumer camera had a variable shutter speed but of course no variable frame rate. Still, I think that as long as you take your lightmeter and dial in your shutter speed, the frame rate will be irrelevant. As long as the meter knows your exposure time it can determine an aperture setting; whether you tell it your shutter speed directly or feed it a combination of shutter angle and fps doesn't matter, as long as it knows one of these things. By the sounds of it these cameras are effectively adjusting the 'shutter angle' automatically as you increase or decrease your frame rate, in effect compensating for the fps to maintain your chosen exposure time. Of course these digital sensors don't use a real shutter but the effect is the same: a variable shutter maintains a set shutter speed as frame rate changes. Therefore my understanding is that you can disregard your frames per second and trust that the camera is delivering a set exposure time no matter the speed you're shooting at. So as long as you know your shutter speed (1/10th, 1/60th, 1/1000th etc) then you can put this value into the meter and start taking readings. It would still be great if a forum regular came along and verified this though. Anyone...?

Thanks Mike and Bill, by the sounds of it I will have to give up hope of receiving the February issue and just start looking forward to March instead... But anyway I take it I'm not the only person still receiving hard copies of the magazine each month? My college library just cancelled their subscription and has moved to digital copies instead, I'm betting a lot of people are doing the same.