Zac Fettig

This is a really good idea. It doesn't replace a light meter, in an ideal world. If you can, BUY A METER! If not, this will work, and probably better than a smartphone app. 1/60 should be close enough as makes no real difference. ~1/57.6 sec/frame, assuming 150 degree shutter (1/(24 FPS * 360 degrees/150 degrees)). Some models of the 814 (like the AZ Electronic) have a variable shutter. It'll be a lot slower setting up than a meter. But even if you have a meter, take the DSLR with you. It will give you a better idea of visualizing what the camera will see. I used this on a shoot, and we mirrored what the camera would see. I was really worried, since we were shooting at night in near pitch black with Tri-X. However, the film didn't quite match the DSLR for response, so keep this in mind. Also, keep in mind that your 814's lens can go to f1.4. If you have an SLR lens that does that, I'm jealous. On my shoot, we used an old M42 mount 50mm f2.0 lens with an adapter. You can also use this to see the color effect of the lights you're using, if you're improvising lights. Turn off AWB and set color balance for the film. Useful if say, you want to see what the response of Halogen work lights will be on Tungsten balanced film. I believe the DP on Black Swan did the same sort of thing. Used a DSLR to double check lighting. The aperture is electronically controlled. This will cause you to swear more than everything else on the camera combined (very few s8 cameras were built with a manually controllable aperture, this was essentially a home movie format). And no, you won't hear anything. If you press a DOF preview button on an SLR, all you hear is the button pressing. The only way you'll hear anything is if the iris is really messed up. Also, try the in-camera meter. They tend to do a fairly good job, if you're not using a modern film (like Vision3 500T) never intended for S8. With 100D Ektachrome, you'll get fairly good results going auto on a good camera like an 814, especially outdoors.

Hi, I have an 814 AZ Electronic, so it's a little different, but for what it's worth... I usually prefer using the internal meter over my Sekonic. Why? Well, the aperture tends to drift if I set it manually. One second it could be F2.0, the next, F2.8. 2 seconds later it'll be 5.6. All without touching the control. I believe it's controlled inside the camera with a little rubber wheel, which has gotten brittle over the last 35 years. I've tried dissecting another 814 AZE (already broken), and it was not fun. Hence I leave it alone and shoot Auto. I believe the original 814 Auto Zoom was a bit more rugged, and built heavier. But I'm not entirely sure. It would be something to keep an eye on.

In Massachusetts, an indy qualifies for the same tax credits, but they're capped, and you have to compete against the studios. The big players who can afford to hire lobbyists usually get them. Small guys never get those credits. Local people never get those credits. Shooting Guerilla becomes riskier, since there's money involved in shooting now, where there didn't used to be. Keep in mind that Toronto only has those labs and studios because of Canadian government grants/funding to Canadian filmmakers for decades; the Canadian Media Fund, run through TeleFilm Canada. "The Great White North" (Bob and Doug MacKenzie) were created because SCTV would only get state funding if they included Canadian content. They are a lot more strict about auditing productions, and that has been the key to their success. Croenenberg gets to make the films he wants to make, because he can get funding. Only in Canada. There is no American equivalent to Telefilm Canada. Not at the state level or federal level. The closest thing is the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and that's essentially the political oversight for PBS and NPR. The closest you could ever get in the US was NEA grants, and those got cut hard back in the early 90s. They even made jokes about it on "Married...With Children." To be honest, cut the crooked tax credits, and replace them with grants for local filmmakers. Or loans, that are strictly managed through a public corporation, on the Telefilm Canada model. I think small productions would do a lot better, and you'd get a lot more bang for your buck, as a taxpayer. The state of Massachusetts allocated something like $100 mil a year for years on end (the same as Telefilm Canada), and doesn't get much return on investment for it. 2 million allocated for grants would get way more results. And Mass does have a lab that does dailies (and is even a sponsor here, Cinelab) that does a kick ass job. But we don't have a Telefilm Massachusetts. Anyways, that's my two cents.

"One of you said that the camera did not matter that much, so I change iso, aparture, etc. on the lenses?" ISO is controlled by the film you've loaded the camera with. It's a measure of the film's sensitivity to light. Aperture is controlled on the lens. The camera doesn't matter that much, but keep in mind they all have unique issues. If you buy a B&H Filmo, buy a later one (like a 70DR). The earlier ones only take double perf film. If you buy a Beaulieu R16, they have battery issues. The Scoopics are great cameras. They have some drawbacks though. If the Mag adapter kit develops problems, they can be really difficult to fix. 400' mag adapters aren't all that common either. If you're going to shoot with 100' daylight loads, no problem. It's still probably your best bet for getting started in 16mm. It is the easiest camera to load, and has a built in meter. The lens is really good. For what its worth, I bought an Arri 16S/B with a Angenieux 12-120mm lens for $500. It won't let you shoot sync sound though, even with a sync motor. The camera is way too noisy and a official Arri blimp for a 16S/B is very rare these days. The biggest problem I'm having is finding/building a power cable. Lack of sync wasn't a problem for me, since I'm not going to be shooting on a soundstage and will have to ADR all my dialogue anyways. That said, if this will be your first time with film, realize it will cost a lot more than just the camera cost. A decent lightmeter will set you back around $250-$300. Lights, film stock, developing, telecine; the list goes on and on. I'm planning to shoot a no-budget feature with mine, and figure it will still cost between $6000-$9000 (ORWO stock, SD telecine, yada-yada). And that's only because the only things I'm paying for are film and processing; I have most of what I need already. Keeping the camera warm is very important. But less difficult than you might think. Those chemical hand warmers work wonders, if you wrap your camera. There used to be a company that sold custom jackets for cameras with built in pockets for hand warmers, but I believe they're out of business. A cheap duffel bag with a hole cut for the lens, and a blanket to wrap the camera works pretty well too. If you're serious about getting started in film, and have no experience with film in any way, you might also want to try Super8. The cameras are a lot cheaper, even for a really good one. The film choices are pretty good these days (Kodak Vision3, Fuji Velvia, etc.), and you can get a short shot and telecine'd for under $500 if you're careful. Even easier to load than the Scoopic, and it'll give you some experience with film. I'm guessing you grew up in the digital age, and have very limited experience with film. If that's the case, the first thing I'd recommend you do is go buy a 35mm still camera, preferably an old one with full manual controls (ex. Pentax K1000), and a few rolls of slide film and go shoot with it. Get some experience working with film. It is a bit different than digital, but the skills transfer. Cannes does not accept exhibition 16mm prints. You'll have to check their requirements for exhibition formats, since it changes by film category. I don't think they care what you shot on.

Thanks Steve! I'm planning on using some old Quantum 2 flash batteries. They're 8V gel cell lead acid batteries, and I have a few lying around. I'll keep looking through old cables and see if I can come up with something. I don't have any projector cords, but I do have old power cords and such.

Just an odd little followup to this threa, but does anyone know where to get a power connector to plug into the back of the Arri? Just the connector, or something that can be easily modified to work (less than 10 minutes). I don't want to buy a cable (~$100 on ebay) and I don't have one. Thanks!

Start with "Painting With Light" by John Alton. It was written for B&W in the 40s, so it doesn't go into much on color temperature. But it is the best book on lighting I've ever read.

The camera only meters ISO 40 and ISO 160. You can't meter inside the camera for 100 exactly. If you put a film cartridge in, it'll read it as 160. It'll be slightly overexposed, by 2/3 of a stop, but it will work just fine. If you turn the internal daylight filter on it will be close. Since 160, which the camera will read the film as, is +2/3 of a stop and the filter is -2/3 stop. I don't believe that camera automatically adjusts for tungsten/daylight film. If you're talking about tearing the camera down to adjust the built in lightmeter, I wouldn't bother. It'll be a huge pain, unless you've rebuilt cameras and lightmeters before. It would be MUCH easier to just use an external lightmeter, and you'll get much better results. Or buy a camera that can read more types of film. A Canon 814 Auto Zoom Electronic can be had for under $50 if you look. The Minolta is nice, but not so nice I'd pour that much time money and effort into, unless it has sentimental value. It's not a Leicina or a Zeiss, by any stretch. Even if you were successful, it would be only an averaged reading at best. Keep in mind, it's a 30 year old camera with a 30 year old lightmeter. If you're determined to do it, here's how I would do it. Set up a calibrated lit target. Put in a dummy load of film, corrected to ISO 100. Point the camera at the target, and measure the light meter response. Write it down. Add 2/3 of a stop to the aperture value (2/3 of a stop smaller). This is your goal. I'd find the resistor attached to the lightmeter sensor and replace the resistor wired to it with a potentiometer. Adjust the potentiometer until it matches your goal. Remove the potentiometer from the circuit, and measure it's value, WITHOUT turning the knob. Wire in a resistor with that value into the circuit. NOTE: Make sure that NO light is bleeding into the sensor while you adjust it. It's a TTL camera, so all the light must be coming from the lens. Close the camera, and shoot a test roll to make sure everything went according to plan. Keep in mind, a LOT can go wrong here. If you can find a service manual, that's the best approach. But they'll be hard to get a hold of these days. I personally don't think it's worth it for 2/3 of a stop adjustment. Especially when the camera handles manual aperture control so well, and the Auto meter is lackluster to begin with.

Just make sure the automatic exposure control switch (on the right side of the camera above the lens and rearward of the macro switch) is set to Auto. It will automatically meter then. You can find a manual here: http://www.super8aid.net/cameras.html You will need to create an account. If you're not sure, run a test film before you shoot anything important. Here, in the US, a roll of tri-x is about $13.50 and developing it is about $15.

That camera meters for ISO 40 or ISO 160. It should read ISO 100 film as ISO 160. The camera will expose it out a bit dark (2/3 of a stop), but the meter should work. It's within the film's latitude. The link below is a film clip for uncorrected 100D in a similar camera to yours, shot in daylight, with the automatic meter. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oNYhgwPrEU It should look like that. But you'll have to shoot a test roll to know for sure. Note that this film was shot 24 fps.

Hi, http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=52598 This link should be helpful. It says you'll need to bump the exposure 2/3 of a stop, with the aperture. So set it 2/3 of a stop wider. -Zac

If it's purely about the Cinematography, here's my list. 10. Star Wars Not a favorite of mine, but it looked like nothing else when it came out. They had to reinvent the camera to do this one. 9. Dragonheart The first and last CGI movie to ever drop my jaw. It looked stunning. 8. Platoon Every scene drove home what these guys were going through. Platoon was to cinematography in war movies what Apocalypse Now was to editing. 7. What Dreams May Come I hated this movie, on a story, acting and directing basis. But that Velvia stock looks like nothing else. 6. Wild at Heart It's hard to say if this movie looked so good because of Frederick Elmes (the DP) or David Lynch (the director). But it did look good. 5. Blow I really liked how they managed to sync the film stocks to the time period (50s, 60s, 70s), yet keep everything clear. Really nice use of camera angles and blocking in this one. 4. Lawrence of Arabia Mentioned a lot here. In a 70mm print, it looks beyond fantastic. 3. The Lake House It's easy to make a visually stunning epic or sci-fi piece. It's much harder to make a (relatively) low budget chick flick pop. Every scene in this movie looked beautiful. 2. Touch of Evil The intro scene alone still drops my jaw. 10 minutes, one continuous take. To this day, I've never seen anything match it. 1. Gone With the Wind This movie invented the sweeping epic. On a good film print, it still blows you away. Hollywood dominates, but then there's a reason for that. Hollywood may not be tops in choreography (fight or dance). Hollywood often follows behind on story, which is why they make so many remakes. But Hollywood cinematography is second to none. Cinematography is kind of an afterthought most places. Stalker (a Tarkovsky film mentioned earlier) is a brilliant film, but an example of this. The cinematography was lacking. The shot composition was sloppy most of the time. Yet it was a brilliant, original movie.

The easiest way is to bump the film speed up a third of a stop. So ISO 200 becomes 220. Or meter for a still shot at 1/40th (1/(24*360/220)) second with the correct ISO. Most meters are set for a 180 degree shutter, by default. The fancy ones (ex. Sekonic L758 Cine) are adjustable for shutter angle. A larger shutter angle will make it smoother and more dreamlike (and more blurred together). A shorter shutter angle makes it choppier and more strobe like. The opening scene of Saving Private Ryan had a really small shutter angle, like 15 degrees, if I remember correctly. At 220, it will still look like film. It is film. Get a few rolls of Tri-X and play with them.