Olivier Egli

aha, I have never heard of this expression. I odered this pen lens with the 3,6mm optic. I remember having taken still pictures and also some video off the eyepiece as a joke during my last music video shoot. And the pic was fine. So this will probably still work out...

alright, you people might already know about my shoot... I just went up to do some metering, and here is what I came up with, I used 200ASA with 1/3 Stop exposure compensation of a 81EF which is 120ASA, 1/50s exposure: 10:30 AM incidental reading 1,25M fc, gave me a F11 reflective reading on the snow gave me a F45 (18%grey) or F11 (as highlight) as I want to shoot at F5.6 this means I have to bring the exposure down 3 stops so with a ND.9 5:30 PM incidental reading 320 fc, gave me F5.6 reflective reading on the snow gave me F11 (18% grey) or F4.5 something as I still want to shoot at F5.6 this means that I do not need to compensate anymore at that time of the day. As I also probably take off the 81EF the exposure should still be fine. I used my sekonic studio delixe and the minolta spotmeter F Any thoughts?

alright, I bought the 3,6mm security cam and the 2,5 inch LCD monitor. Should be here sometime next week. My friend builds a ring tap to attach to the eyepiece. But Mitch, what is a spacer lens???

hi phil, you are right It probably doesnt have autofocus, dumb me! and it is thought as a security camera. and the major pont is: it is really really cheap! About 50 bucks!! on discount. so I should run for it, you think? what about the mount? to the eyepiece or take off the viewfinder for it? it probably doesnt matter, right?

hi everyone I have this nice 16M that I love and I am going to use it some more for handheld shots where I need good control of the framing and composition. Not for anything else.. So I thought of using some kind of a lipstick camera attached to the viewfinder and connected to a LCD monitor. I found a really tiny CCD camera that would fit with some minor modification into the eyepiece. my question: 1.) do I have to detach the whole viewfinder for it or can it be done at the eyeglass? 2.) will the ccd camera (as it is probably autofocus) hold the focus or will it constantly change as it looks for focus? 3.) does it work at all? 4.) is there a better way to do it? 5.) Is the light sensitivity of 0,5 lux a problem? the camera has a focal length of 3,6mm, has auto iris, weights about 27 grams and uses 12 volt. If this works I will have my friend, a metalworker, to design and build a custom connecting ring of the camera to th eyepiece to shut down light. The idea is to pad it with some foam and/ or rubber so it nicely snugs over the eyepiece. the camera I intend to use:

Hi Jim This is, indeed, a nice effect, but not the one I am looking for. In the examples I mentioned the image was really crisp and sharp. there was no blurring vivible. the image even seemed sharper than at normal speed. So my guess still is that it has been shot at lower speed with the shutter compensating or maybe even overcompensating for the exposure addition. And the acting was probably slower as well, but not naturally slow to get that unnatural ghost effect. then it has been telecined at that lower speed and sped back up to 25fps (PAL) electronically. Maybe they even used some frame removal. like removing every 6th frame in flint or smoke.... but no shutter angle mod possible with my 16m... :(

I helped a friend on one of those selfmade bodymounts. And as the actress who was supposed to wear the mount was rather small and could not carry the weight for longer then 10 seconds (we used a bolex with close up diopters on the switar), I contructed a suspension from a fishing perch. The assistant was running in front of the actress holding the perch on which a part of the weight of the mount was hanging. the whole thing not being that heavy it worked out fine. I had to re-enforce the perch though with some alloy pipes in the sides. You just have to make sure that the mount fits well on the body in order to avoid moving to the side. that you cant avoid with the perch. also design the perch as short as possible to make sure not to hang on door frames etc. I will look up if we still have the mount and send you some pics. cheers Olivier

hehehe, the mountains shot again...sorry... so I skip the enhancer and look into the 812 warming filter. as I want to maintain my overall cool look I dont want the 812 to warm it back up, only bring out the orange blouse in the wide and medium shots and improve the look of the skin in the close ups. also, do I need a skylight or even a haze filter at all when using the 81EF? thanks again Olivier

as I statet I will shoot the grey chart with an 85 and then shoot with a 81EF from there. Mr Mullen gave me the hint and to me it makes absolute sense. the question here is if the skylight or haze is necessary or if it works against the desired blue tint I am going for. also I skip the enhancer thing, I am more interested in the 812. but what oes it do to the image? does it warm up everything and therefore ddestroy, once more, the effect I want. Or does it only warm up reds and oranges? Also, does it make sense in a widde shot where you only see a small orange spot? I think slowly I am getting somewhere with your help! :rolleyes: :D

yes, that's fine with me. I will follow the adivse of the incidental reading. It will probably be overcast on that particualr day, as most of the time in may in this region. people up there told me that, so I will rather have too little than too much contrast. some cameraman here recommended the low contrast 3 but I dont want that, this will make me lose definition in the snow. although it probably nicely desaturates the colors. but this the post will do. do I still need the haze or skylight with the 85 or 81EF on? also will the 812 (instead of the rather objectionable enahncer, thanks Mr Mullen) warm up the whole picture (destroying the effect I am going for) or is it only for skintones and orange? In that case, should I only use it in close ups where you see the skin or also in wideshots where you see the orange blouse?

thanks, Fredrik! I will make sure to send you some pics of the raw and of the finished shot! Your advise has helped me a lot! cheers

no, I did not mean that video. I knew that this was done with stop motion. I am talking about some spooky music video from the mid 90ies. And some Marilyn Manson. I remember a shot of a young girl with a pale face walking through a room and extiting through a door, and her motion was just as the one desribed. At time she seemed to be moving faster.... strange!

great! thanks! I finally got some viable information about the problems that were causing me bad sleep.. It is interesting tough to hear that reflective readings are not as widely used as I thought. I admit, they tend to get confusing at times. i will carry mine with me to check for highlights and the allover contrast of the scene. (Maybe I should get a sensitometric curve of my stock? but that's probably far too exagerated). In general the actor is gonna be very small in the frame in the wide shots so that I worry more about the snow, but I still want the orange to be on the rather glowy bright side. so in a incident reading I could let him be a bit over key, right? incident reading of the snow means holding the meter towards the snow (which would be reflective) of actually measuring the light falling on the snow?

thanks Mitch! I know, I have to stop worrying all the time.

this is what I found: ..."Alas, all was not well with didymium glass. While the intense reds and oranges knocked your socks off, and the yellows were often improved, it had significant color cross-over problems (the overall magenta cast taken on by the neutrals, whites, greens, and lighter pastel shades). Many found this objectionable after the novelty had worn off. The Tiffen filter was thinner, which reduced the objectionable cross-over effects, while preserving the intensified effects at the red end of the spectrum. Improved, but with a long way to go, critics felt the results were often garish and surrealistic, with degraded colors on the opposite end of the spectrum, particularly greens. Even proponents freely admitted that proper scene selection was essential for best results."

yes, again me with my mountain shoot. As stated I am shooting at 8000ft altitude in the snow, probably with indirect diffused sunlight (hopefully) and keeping a blue tint to the image by undercorrecting the daylight on my tungsten 7274. My main actor wears an orange blouse which I would like to pop out. I dont want to rely on telecine (i dont have much telecine time for grading), so the use of filters might be appropriate in this case. The tiffen enhancer should be able to accentuate the orange hue, but what about the snow and the sky? Do i need to worry? I want the surrounding to be fairly blue and desaturated. I am going for a pretty surrealistic look. To what extend is a hues shift acceptable and motivated? Thanks all Olivier

hi everyone it's me again with my mountains shots as stated in another thread. I am shooting this music video in the Swiss alps and so far I could cover the question about the film stock, color temp and filters. Another thing is exposure control I know I am going to have to NDs the hell out of the light since I have snow and probably overcast weather. I thought of keeping the face of my actor 1 stop under key (normal rated 7274) so the camera is at F5.6 and the face at F4. his orange blouse might be 1-2 stops hotter than the camera's setting and the highlight (snow) I will determine with my spotmeter with the highlight setting. that's okay so far, the tricky thing are the extreme wide shots. shot with zeiss superspeed 9.5mm I will have superwide shots for far above of my actor walking in the snow. How do I determine the exposure/ the NDs as I want to shoot the close ups at F5.6 and the wide shots at F4? Can I only rely on my spotmeter reading the highlights in the wide shots? Should I just measure the contrast between the snow and blouse and decide that the snow is at lets say 3 stops over key? So in that case if my reading of the snow is F11 I would be fine with an iris setting of F4? help! how can I determine the right exposure for the wide shots??? Mr. Mullen? Anyone??

hi everyone it's me again with my mountains shots at stated in another thread. I am shooting this music video in the Swiss alps and so far I could cover the question about the film stock, color temp and filters. Another thing is exposure control I know I am going to have to NDs the hell out of the light since I have snow and probably overcast weather. I thought of keeping the face of my actor 1 stop under key (normal rated 7274) so the camera is at F5.6 and the face at F4. his orange blouse might be 1-2 stops hotter than the camera's setting and the highlight (snow) I will determine with my spotmeter with the highlight setting. that's okay so far, the tricky thing are the extreme wide shots. shot with zeiss superspeed 9.5mm I will have superwide shots for far above of my actor walking in the snow. How do I determine the exposure/ the NDs as I want to shoot the close ups at F5.6 and the wide shots at F4? Can I only rely on my spotmeter reading the highlights in the wide shots? Should I just measure the contrast between the snow and blouse and decide that the snow is at lets say 3 stops over key? So in that case if my reading of the snow is F11 I would be fine with an iris setting of F4? help! how can I determine the right exposure for the wide shots??? Mr. Mullen? Anyone??

thanks for the kind help! this is very important for me. Also thanks Fredrik. You are absolutely right, you confirm what I was thinking. I wont go too nuts about the mired shifts and simply use a 81 and go half blue in the evening. I use the polarizer for the beauty shots when shooting off a tripod. so my plan with all the information I got so far: shooting through the day 7274 with NDs, 81(EF), enhancer for the orange hues in the blouse shooting in the evening 7274 with some NDs, probably no correction to get the red sunset for the beauty shots: 7274 with 85BN9, Polarizer , some promist (1/4) and maybe a red grad most of all I will have to cover the skintone exposure well in the wide and clsoe ups. I thought of underexposing the skin in the face by 1 stop in the "nasty" shots. the orange blouse is going to be 1 stop over "key" and the snow blows out as highlight. in the beauty shots the face is 1/2 stop over (using make up) and some bounce from underneath (with golden rosco on foamcore). what o you think?

hi everyone I am intending to shoot an expressionist music video up in the mountains on 16mm. The look has to be quite blueish and unfriendly. Grain is anticipated, also I would like to keep saturation low but not lose contrast. There might still be some snow or actually a lot of snow on location so that low contrast isnt possible or I will lose all the detail and definition of the picture. I intended to use Kodak 7274 with partial correction to help create the blue effect. pushing is probably not necessary as the slow 7274 will hold its fine grain even if rated at 400ASA and pushed 1 to 1 1/2 stops. Am I right? Now I stumbled over 4 unused rolls of 7246 250D. It has been kept in the fridge for a while. I used some of it 4 months ago, the colours were less saturated than normal 250D and there was some obvious grain, especially in the shadows. The fog level might be quite high though. Which stock is the best to go for in regard of the look I want to create? I know, I will have to shoot some tests. But I need to know whether to have my lab to push the film or not. thanks for help and advice Olivier

Fredrik Wont the use of a polarizer in this situation kill all the contours of shades and mountains? Also how to deal with handheld shots? As the axis of the sun will be in motion the effect of the polarizer will change all the time...? I mean I have overly bright light from every possible direction, I got snow and almost no contrast to start with. If I break down the contrast even more than i am left with a picture that shows just solid fills and plain colours and no definition at all, or not?? My idea was to desaturate the look, yes, but not to kill the contrast too much. It is nice to still have some definition in the snow, to see where there are bumps and a path and stuff like that... Plus my actor is going to wear an orange uniform which I want to pop out even more than usually. So I though of using a tiffen enhancer to bring out the reds and oranges. You said you used an 81 with the 250D which is already daylight and the 81 being an orange filter. was it still getting blue because the temperature was so damn high? So I was to use an 81EF with a tungsten balanced film I am even more in the bluish region, right? Summary: If I use my 7274 I am fine correcting it only a bit down the kelvin scale with some 81EF. I will take 2 ND.6 and 1 ND.9 with me. this gives me control over up to minus 4 stops with 2 NDs plus I have a Haze Filter that will cut down UV rays but also some of the blue...right? the 250D being overstocked wont be any good I think. so 7274 plus 81EF and Haze filter = bluish and desaturated overall look. is this probable? and if the sky is overcast then maybe throw a 85c on it? damn, I think I take it a bit too exact..! this thing is killing me!!!!!!!

thanks guys so I think I will be going for the 12fps and half speed acting thing. then speed it up and see what the footage looks like. Will shoot some tests in the next few weeks and tell you about that. Maybe it is really as simple as that... Unfortunately I cannot mess with my shutter angle in the 16M. I dont really want to have to rely on renting an expensive modified sr2 for this one shoot...

...I have one addition: I just got my hands on 3 rolls of Kodak 7246 250D. I think of maybe using this for the "nasty" shots with a blueish cast. but how will I work out my color conversion? Little correction around noon? No correction in the afternoon? 80 filter for the sunset shootings? the stock is not exactly fresh, I have used some of it 3 months ago and the color rendition is good yet the film is grainy. But for this particular use it might be okay as I want grainy and harsh looks. But then maybe I should push it...? help!!

hi everyone I intend to shoot a music video in the swiss alps in a few weeks. My idea is to render the images really cold and unfriendly, even harsh and a bit unpleasant/ uncomfortable. And then there are onther images that should spread out a warm and nice tone as a contrast... As I am using Kodak 7274 stock which is rather on the red side my idea is to correct only partially for the heavy bluish cast of diffused daylight which the sunlight up there will give me. A reading with a minolta color meter showed about 9500K at noon... So I thought of correcting at noon with a 85BN6 and then moving over to a 85C at around 2 Pm with seperate NDs and then a 81EF after 4 PM. The shots at around sundawn will be shot uncorrected to keep the natural redish cast of the light intact. first question: Am I about right with this setup? Will this render partially blue images as I am not fully correcting it? (a 85B filter with a mired shift of 131 will only correct 9500K down to about 4237K which is still quite on the blue side, right?). second question: to render the images really unfreindly and harsh I was thinking of underexposing the images by 1/2 stop (ASA 250) and then push it 1 stop. for the pleasant images I wanted to overexpose by one stop (ASA100) and the pull process it back to ASA200. will these two techniques help me get the look I wish? will the pushing increase the grain and also the dramatic effect? will it desaturate the colors? and increase the contrast? will the pulling render the images smoother and nicer and will it saturate the colors? will it cut down the contrast? third question: whith all that said, how can I improve the effect of the manipulated exposure and processing with in camera filtering? will a coral or tiffen enhancing filter improve the saturation of an orange dress in the unpleasant shots without affecting the snow around? will a polarizer and maybe a red grad improve the nice look of the warmer images together with stronger color correction? how can I make the negative pictures look more negative? (most of them handheld) how can I make the positive pictures look more positive? (most of them off a tripod) I know, I am asking a lot but it is stuff I need to figure out in order to get decent shots for my demoreel Thanks Olivier

so here it comes: A while ago I saw some footage of a music video that had a really stylish and nicely unsmoothy jittery motion to it. It was kinda jumpy and yet fluid at a time. it seemed a bit sped up and the motion was very sudden. Almost like stopmotion. Or kinda like it was recorded at 12 frames and then sped up and every 6th frame or so removed. How can I emulate this look with my 16M? The goal is to get this really spooky and ghostlike motion. also the lights of the footage seemed to be vibrating as the actors moved along... Does it have something to do with the shutter angle being closed down very far? Do I get this look by closing down the shutter (not on my 16M of course) and recording at slow motion and then speeding it up in post? any help is appreciated Olivier