Jump to content

Valter Jaakkola

Basic Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Occupation
  • Location
  • My Gear
  1. I highly recommend Andrei Tarkovsky's book "Sculpting in Time" - to me a it's a pure diamond.
  2. Hello, I was wondering, how close the Vision 3 films are to each other? Of course the sensitivity and grain differ, but are there much if any differences in terms of colour, contrast and perhaps sharpness too? After all they are being advertised as being intercuttable. If the obvious things like grain are not taken into consideration, would it be impossible to distinguish the different Vision 3 stocks from each other? To a slighty other thing, if the Vision 3 films are very similar, does it make a lot of sense to have 4 stocks that practically look the same? It shouldn't be a big thing to add an extra stop of ND or an 85 filter. Kind regards, Valter
  3. Looks amazing, there are almost no signs of underexposure at all! (Though cities usually aren't pitch black.) About the hand held, which camera did you use?
  4. Hi, I did a short film in the middle of the winter, temperature was somewhere between -10 and -20 celsius at least. The camera we used was an Arri 16SR2. The SR2 didn't work outside in the cold so we had to change it to an SR3. The focus of one of our lenses got frozen, and the eypiece of the camera fogged easily because we didn't have a heated eypiece. If I was to film outside in the winter again, I would get a heated eyepiece and test the gear outside (after the camera has cooled for a while) to avoid hassle in case it won't co-operate. If it's snowing very much I'd also take a raincover for the camera. Batteries could also be a problem so you would have to heat them in your breast pocket or get a big block battery. There could be a chance of film getting stiff in cold conditions so heated magazines could be needed, too. Condensation however is not so clear to me; I don't know whether gear should be taken inside in sealed plastic bags. Obviously, if one goes from cold exterior to film in warm interior some time should be allowed for any potential fog in viewfinder, lenses etc. to clear up. What I did to avoid condensation problems was to leave the equipment cases open after taking the equipment inside to ensure no potential fog and moisture would be left inside the lenses and camera etc. However I do not know whether this procedure was proper or not. Valter
  5. Beautiful! A bit like a dream. Quite dark and serious atmosphere. It's so good one forgets about lenses, focal lengths, exposures etc. Valter
  6. Thanks, Satsuki! And to Sam: I can understand how one can be irritated by grammatical errors and typos and is itched to note about them as I tend to be a bit similar in that way. And it is indeed a good thing to have a high standard for grammar and verbal communication as it's the only way of communicating in a very detailed way. Other types of communication don't quite cover that the same way. But the thing here, as you know, was the very unpolite and almost hostile way of criticizing the grammar as it was out of proportion compared to what was the amount of errors: Tyler's post sure had its share but it was still very understandable. I've seen a LOT worse around the internet (which is a bit sad, I guess). But I might be able to somewhat understand your sadness about the degradation of standards of written language even though english isn't my mother tongue. But if newspapers here would start to have more and more grammar errors, it would indeed make me a bit sad. But then, this isn't a newspaper or a magazine, but an internet forum. Though that doesn't mean good language couldn't be used here as well. I think it's a great thing people write here and communicate with fellow cinematographers. I myself would have had no chance of going to the screening so it's great to be able to read about it here! Valter P.S. I think what Tyler means with the "too sharp out-of-focus areas" is either maybe the too technically perfect bokeh or then "bokeh outlining", also known as nisen bokeh. What he refers to as "artistic bokeh" is probably the "distortion" of out-of-focus areas caused by the anamorphics; the oval shape of the "discs".
  7. I actually totally forgot the effect of the larger negative but now that you mentioned it, it's obvious it has a considerable role in achieving that look by ensuring a good resolution and clarity with the older softer optics. In the first post I only meant that the usage of film and not digital already helped in achieving a more natural look. Btw, does anyone know how fast those old anamorphic lenses are? Valter
  8. The image is from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_35 Valter
  9. I'm not sure if I'm a fan of Tarantino's movies but I guess I have to go to see this... Shame though all the theaters showing this are presumably only 2K in my country. The two posted images really have sort of an "old" look to them, especially the colours (and maybe the vignettes a little bit too). Wonder if it's about the lens coatings. The flares are rather beatiful as well. I wonder what is it that makes that kind of soft but detailed (good resolution) look. Of course film helps in the first place with its natural depiction of detail but maybe the lenses are a bit lower on micro contrast as well (or not on a high level at least). (On a side note I would guess the medium contrast, 20 cycles/mm perhaps (halfly guess), might be responsible for clarity in an image. However lower contrast here as well might help for a softer looking image, at least too much sharpness here easily creates a hard looking image and with sharpening it's easy to go to sickening levels.) Please comment and correct if I'm totally lost here. Any kind of ideas on creating that kind of softer look with 35mm? Of course older lenses (wide open) will give a soft image but often with not that much detail. Would uncoated lenses be of any help here? Oh how nice it would be to be able to try that format... Or even see it projected. Also of great interest will be the Hawk65 Anamorphic lenses. Maybe they are the European way for anamorphic 65mm if there is already a crazy high demand for those Panavision lenses in the US. Valter
  10. Thank you very much for the helpful responses! As a beginning filmmaker any advice is appreciated! I shall discuss with the rental house about the prices for longer rents to see what they can offer. The only thing that keeps me away from the 535s and the BLs are their weight and the BL's age. Altough the BLs have stood up well against the time, there is no guarantee they will do the same for another lifetime. About the noise, how much of a problem an increased noise level (25dB compared to <20dB) is in practice? Is it of any help if the camera is covered with a thick carpet for instance? I don't know about you Simon, but to me handheld isn't about aggressive shaking and blurry images as opposed to what it is in various action movies. The effect I'm looking for is sort of a slow rocking and not shake which the weight of a cine camera will help to reduce to a minimum. And altough I didn't mention anything about a tripod doesn't mean I wouldn't be using such. I just don't want to rule out the possibility of handheld by choosing a very heavy camera. Besides a lighter camera is easier for a small crew to handle anyway. Valter
  11. Hello, I'm considering about buying my own 35mm film camera. Pardon if this is a common topic on this forum, but I'd like to get some advice from people wiser than me. The rational reason for owning a 35mm camera would be the duration of the film projects. Because we're not at a professional level and everyone has another job or goes to school, the filming schedule is rather irregular and long. I figured that a rent of 2 months would buy me half of my own camera and anyway at least I would like to make more projects than just one. The lenses would be rental however because they are very expensive and one usually needs more than just one focal length or model. The cameras I'm considering are the following: Moviecam Compact Moviecam SL Arricam ST The Moviecams are about 5000$ and the Arricam ST is 12000£ (a rental house is the seller). Do these sound like fair prices? Is Visual Products a reliable seller (seller of the Moviecams)? To the main point: What I'm looking for is a reliable basic sync sound 35mm camera which is not too heavy for shoulder operation. I would be expecting a couple ten years (or more) of service life. The Arricam would probably be the best choice, as Arri still services them and accessories like mags can be rented from the local rental house for it but the price of the camera is rather high for me. So are the Moviecams a good option? I know that the Moviecams and Arricams both have practically the same movements, but I heard that the electronics of the Moviecams are inferior. However what is unclear to me is that are the electronics of the Moviecams just less sophisticated or really of inferior design or build quality? Also I believe getting a Moviecam serviced can prove to be difficult. Out of the Moviecams the SL would probably be the better choice as it's a bit newer and smaller. But I heard that the body wouldn't be so rigid and thus prone to light leaks. Is this true? Also, is the extra noise (compared to a Compact or ST) a problem when dialogue is recorded while filming? Sorry for the bit lengthy text, but I would appreciate any advice (but please don't try to sell me digital - it's just not the same). Thank you very much for any help and information. Regards, Valter
  • Create New...