Jeff L'Heureux

To be fair, I believe there's also some visual effects involved in shots like this, as I read that they digitally added a number of buildings into the skyline to add to the futuristic setting, so some of that bokeh is simulated.

MELS in Montreal is great. I used them the last time I shot film in Vancouver, and FedEx'd the negative over there with no fear of it being x-rayed at all since it never crossed a border.

I've handed over the sales/distribution end of things to the sales agent who bought the rights to both of my films at last year's AFM. They did just sell my first feature 'Shadow of the Lotus' in its first territory this past week, so hopefully 'Wandering Hearts' will be available to be seen in some capacity soon. I'll post about it here if/when that happens. In the mean time, there are a few select clips from the film you can see on Vimeo. All of these clips in particular were shot on Kodak 7203 50D in various conditions. Cheers! Clip 01 (Mont St. Michel dancing): vimeo.com/165077527/4bedc36aab Clip 02 (under the stars): vimeo.com/184452026/68e1044e10 Clip 03 (Mont St. Michel photos): vimeo.com/184474566/c1859d6e87 Clip 04 (Eiffel Tower): vimeo.com/184635390/f083b126b9 Clip 05 (Cafe meeting): vimeo.com/184754702/a0b1bfb92c

Aww, thanks guys, making me blush. If I could go back I would've absolutely rented some Vantage Hawk V-Lite 16's and shot it anamorphic since the bulk of production was done in Paris right where they have headquarters. It didn't occur to me until after production though.

My last feature was shot on super16 using 50D, 250D and 500T. All day exteriors were shot on 50D rated a full two stops over, day interiors were shot on 250D also rated two stops over but filmed using only natural light from windows and bounce, and the few night exteriors were shot on 500T rated normally. The trailer also features some day for night on 50D with visual effects involved. You can get a taste of what 50D looks like overexposed two stops in all of the daytime footage in this trailer: https://vimeo.com/152268039 I personally love the look from the overexposure. It further reduced the grain and still never clipped any of the highlights.

The cassettes made the camera super convenient, as you could hot swap them even if they're partially shot as there's no direct threading in the camera body itself. Also, since it uses 100' daylight spools, you can load in low light as opposed to total darkness. The only real downside is the cassettes can be a little noisy when filming, and there is occasionally some intermittent film base scratching as was common when you look at footage from those 16mm cameras from the 1950's. It was rare though and never ruined footage. Heck, nowadays kids are using digital effects to add scratches and grain like that!

Wow, we sure could've used this manual years ago when I owned two of these cameras. We ordered them off of eBay from Russia, and we had to take it to Whites in Vancouver where we all marveled over it and the techs literally tinkered with it until we figured out how to load the film and operate it for the first time. It's pretty intuitive though, we figured it out quickly. I've since resold them both but they were rugged and worked great. My first feature was shot using two of these cameras and their lenses for a vintage look. We used Fuji's Eterna Vivid 500 for everything but the daytime shots. Here's what the camera and its lenses look like: https://vimeo.com/157962480

There is a pesky iris dial kind of hidden on the bottom of the Integrated Video System of the 416, and not immediately apparent to the naked eye. When I first used a monitor with it, the screen was black because the iris was fully stopped down until I found the dial. Look for the dial and play with it to make sure it's open. Here's a pic of the diagram to the dial. http://imgur.com/a/SC2CF

A jib arm would get the job done, or perhaps a really steady drone flying straight up.

Lately, I've been watching ProRes files using DaVinci Resolve. It seems to not have the color/brightness shifts that I've noticed when opening the same files with quicktime or VLC, at least for me.

SOLD Thank you.

Terrence Malick seems to be an expert on staying unseen and getting away with it.

The graded footage looks fine to me. Maybe slightly overexposed, but you didn't lose too much details and it looks like film should/would look, ie: very nice. The lens and stop you shoot at can also affect the contrast/exposure, of course, but this is pretty much exactly what I'd expect Bolex 16mm footage to look like.

Updated and reduced price from earlier this year. I currently have a small inventory of factory sealed cans of Kodak 16mm negative in storage in France. I had planned to shoot it myself, but the need is no longer there, so I'm willing to sell it at a discount. If you're interested, and located anywhere in Europe, it would be easy for me to ship it. I have in proper storage: 9 brand new sealed 400' cans of 7203 50D 1 brand new sealed 400' can of 7207 250D 200ft shortend of 7219 500T 100ft shortend of 7203 50D 240ft shortend of 7203 50D The new cans are 70 euros each and assuming someone wants to buy alll 10 cans I'll throw in all of the shortends for free. You have my guarantee they are just as shootable though. The shortends where made at the end of shooting days when film was still remaining in the camera mag but it needed to be loaded with a different stock for the following day. The rolls were cut with scissors in a changing bag and put back in their cans, still on a core. To reiterate: - 70€ / can (preferably would like all 10 purchased) + shipping Message me if interested.

Getting 16mm to look "more like 35mm" as you say comes down to the camera, lenses, film stock, and lighting. Your best chance would be to use a professional grade super16 camera like an Arri or Aaton, a good set of lenses, and proper lighting. The great thing about 16mm is that its looks can vary wildly across the same overall format. You can have an image that looks more like super8 home footage all the way up to an image that can be mistaken for 35mm by general audiences.

$1000 is pretty tight to shoot on 16mm. There are three basic costs to 16mm. The raw stock, the processing, and the transfer to an editing format. If you contact Kodak directly, they can and do offer discounts on raw stock for independent filmmakers, but you're generally looking at around or over $100 per 400ft can of 16mm negative. That's around 10 minutes of footage if you're shooting entirely at 24fps. Depending on your expected shooting ratio, you may go over $1000 on stock alone. Next is processing. I can't give an exact number as it's varied for me wildly over the years. I've had anywhere between $0.11 per foot to $0.24 per foot myself, depending on the lab but that's just me. Assuming the higher end of mine, that would be $96 in processing for every 400ft can. So now, with only a single can of 400ft of 16mm shot and processed, you've already spent $200. The third step, converting to an editing format, varies in price so wildly it's hard for me to even estimate. It depends on what resolution you want it in, HD, 2k, 4k, etc, what format, scanned or telecine'd, etc. Bottom line, it's not impossible, but with only $1000, you will severely limit the amount of stock you can shoot overall. It's not like digital where you can just shoot take after take. The more you shoot, the more your costs will compound and add up. To get away with that budget you'd have to shoot single takes, and pretty much edit in camera. No coverage.

Do you have more information on your project? Is it a short, feature? What is the budget on the production side? What is the content of the project? Day photography/night photography? Do you have a lighting budget? Those are important first questions. Do you have access to a 16mm camera package already, or are you starting without anything? Once these questions are addressed more specific advice could be given.

You'd probably have an easier time using a filter to produce flare effects rather than an individual lens. Then you could get the same effect across any lens. A higher end product would be something like Schneider's True Streak filter line or something similar: https://www.schneideroptics.com/ecommerce/CatalogSubCategoryDisplay.aspx?CID=2216 Then, there are cheaper, DIY methods as well which involve scratching or marking filters by hand in various patterns. Youtube has a bunch of these tutorials.

Zacuto did three series of camera shootouts for 2010, 2011, and 2012 that were very informative at the time, but there is a lot more new gear now in the intervening years. http://www.zacuto.com/original-web-content

It's four factors, in general: -shooting super16 over normal 16mm, this is a big jump in resolution, clarity and smaller grain. -the lenses used. On features that shoot super16 they'll use very high quality, professional lenses that are 10's of thousands of dollars. These greatly effect the image and it's one of the main tools of a cinematographer to produce a 'look'. -the cinematographer's lighting. Film loves light. Light it and expose it properly and you can generate the clarity, sharpness, contrast and grain you're looking for. Also, how it's chosen to be processed in the lab as well. -the camera. The higher up the camera, such as the SR3 and Arri 416, the pulldown is very stable and stationary versus an older cheaper camera like a bolex where there might be a lot of gate weave or scratching that makes it begin to look more like 8mm. Then there's factors like the film stock used, and the type of scan done. But, in simple terms, you could shoot super16 on a modified bolex with an old lens, scan it the same, but it would look markedly different from the same stock shot on an Arri 416 with the Arri/Zeiss Ultra16 lenses. And, on larger budget shows or films they may even take the further step of DNR or sharpening after the fact.

Most editing systems on PC can still read and edit ProRes (I don't use Premiere but I'm fairly certain it will) but some have the annoying restriction of not letting the user output/encode new ProRes files. I believe DNxHD is the other common format used if this is the problem. Either way, you could still edit the ProRes masters, but may have to output to DNxHD. Or you could output an uncompressed .TIF sequence in the very end onto an external hard drive and take it to a Mac system to encode into ProRes. It's complicated and there's lots of options, but a lot easier if you own both a PC and a Mac.

Apple ProRes 4444 is a nice robust editing and coloring format to master in. You can edit individual frames just fine.

Even fans of the actual movie have been known to complain that Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem, was a little too dark for its own good in the lighting department in some places. Case in point:

A lot more than people think. Everyone notices bad ADR or looping that isn't properly sync'd, but the great ADR slips by unnoticed. Basically, if it's set in a really quiet studio setting, it's likely they use the original audio, but you'd be surprised just how much is ADR'd. Take this scene from Thor: The Dark World. Specifically the exchange before Loki transforms for the first time around 14 seconds in. The behind the scenes footage utilizes the actual sound recorded on the set, which sounds good, but you can hear all of the squeeks and sounds of their elaborate wardrobe and footsteps: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQXduY16Zpo Then, if you look at the same scene in the finished movie, suddenly their dialogue is flawless, clean, and ever so slightly different in delivery. That's great ADR that the audience would never notice. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpy22Yosp04 Some directors though opt keep the original audio, despite these imperfections, to keep the performance completely intact.

The Walking Dead shoots super16 on Kodak 7219 500T, and has been called 'gritty' looking. Some of that can be achieved depending on the shutter angle used as well. Here's an example from the show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HUFDRniLHk