Stephen Perera

thanks for all the great information and especially my friend from many thousands of km's away Mr Tyler Purcell a true gentleman and putting the money where his mouth is with our beloved film......

I still think you should go see it Richard..... To change the subject completely, I'm going to watch your Against the Wld film.....what was it shot on by the way....no tech specs on IMDB.....its great to be able to converse with people who have stuff out there....and Boddington....haha how Northern of you lad...I know you're Yorkshire not Manchester but still.....Leed Utd I take it.....

apart from the problem which I cant help you with I really like the footage and cant wait to use Double-X myself....also that 'problem' would probably find itself in some hipster (as you Americans like to call it haha) filter pack of 'film emulation'

Hi there....will embark on my first 16mm film project soon but wanted to gather as many tips as possible from seasoned pros in this forum..... Would like tips on how to: .....tape up all the seams of the magazine.....what to do and avoid doing?....how to label the mags etc...what to write etc.... and what about handling the camera.....I find it more natural to me of panning. etc by holding the magazine as opposed to the tripod lever......is this a no-no or is this normal...... basically anything and everything that would result in good practice from day one.....thanks!

Im astounded by your comment....child porn? you haven't seen the film....what child porn? honestly you need to see something before commenting.....there's a scene with a baby but cold porn???? Im flabbergasted by this comment......full respect to you and your opinions but really .....

the simple answer is how do you want the background to look compared to your subject (person I guess in this case)..... if you want the background and the person to look 'the same' you have to 'balance' the light (stills photography term).....either with light shone onto the subject that's strong enough, or using reflectors etc... simplistically....e.g. background is at f8 and person is at f4 then you need to put more light onto the subject until it reads f8 as well meaning the scene is balanced. If you want the background to appear lighter as in the scene of the Denzel Washington movie (keeping the scene as the eye sees it more or less) then I would start by metering the outside and learn if the film stock/digital camera i am using holds those highlights within its dynamic range (detail in the blacks and detail in the highlights) and then start adding light onto the scene inside the cafeteria..... ratios are for communicating to people on a real film set/location with lighting crew/gaffer of how much darker or lighter you want lights.... .....ultimately its all about perception and your vision.....its one of those how long is a piece of string questions.... ...but what the hell do I know Im just a stills photographer enamoured with the art of filmmaking.....

you cant have an opinion unless you watch something.....

I think it's OUTSTANDING and ASTOUNDING.....both as an allegorical piece and in terms of cinematography.....as a story in terms of what everything and everyone represents its superb in my view...I dare not spoil it for anyone until you all see it.....and in terms of the camera work....e.g. the continuous closeups that in my view add to the stranglehold the film has on us plus the grain of the 16mm film....the subdued light of it all......I hope you all see this film and come in and talk about it here.....

looks interesting will check it out

Interesting comeback of Polaroid launching Polaroid Originals - new film for new cameras and legacy models....are there any romantics out there who will use Polaroids again to check light setups, composition etc.....or maybe to catalogue the process of your work? I always used to shoot it with my Hasselblad back in the day....seeing that image come out is still magical!!!

add to that list the Aaton XTR XC which is an XTR without any electronics which is what I have.....serial number 1599...according to Allan Giles in the UK (service guru) it was produced as like a back up for when you're out there in the middle of the jungle filming and your electronics on the other Aaton give up.....mine is a regular 16 as previous owners swapped out the S16 capabilities.....well documented on this forum hahah

I second Allan Giles in the UK....great guy, friendly, no bullshit and he will do the job...

regardless of all this i really like the styling and colour of the footage not to mention the actress really looks the part....being born in 1966 i know what Im talking about hahaha.....the 'imperfections' you speak of will be seen by 99% of the audience as some cool 'filter' u have added

Thank you very much for the footage.....it definitely pops the character from the background and looks very 3 dimensional cooke look to me.....thanks for taking the time and effort!!!

thanks for the excellent advice as always

no i really liked it in all aspects....I just felt they must have spent a lot of time trying to make it look like 16mm film so why not shoot it....its got those mad saturations and f.1.8 aberrations vibe going on all over the film....love it

...watched it last night and really enjoyed it.....according to IMDB was shot on an Arri Alexa....yet so much effort to get, in my opinion, to get look of 16mm film......not even 35mm I thought....so why didn't they just shoot it on 16mm film.... obv im speculating that was the intention........the colour grading, the look of the film.........even the chromatic aberrations, the super saturation on the greens especially...reminds me of using the Nikon 50mm f1.8 at f1.8 on stills camera...... any thoughts?

cou l'd you explain the framing chart procedure in simple terms..... as I understand it logically its like when I shoot Hasselblad 6 x 6 with the intention of using the shot say in an A4 portrait brochure...I would produce a mask on my ground glass of two lines as a framing guide to know how much surplus width I have in the frame in this case...... ......in THIS case I would be rolling standard 16mm gate with a standard 16mm ground glass..... so if I wanted to shoot for a 16:9 TV ratio for example how does a framing chart translate to this.....the workflow for me is shoot the film...send to lab and they telecine or 2k scan and I run it all in daVinci resolve.....should I wish to create a widescreen version of it all I would need to know that whilst Im shooting of course...... so in reality I see 'the problem' being for me to somehow see the lines of my framing for widescreen as I shoot as I will do my own post framing and editing

thanks all...as usual

thanks...so inside the thick black line.....Arsenal didn't do great this weekend...Man U myself

a simple one to confirm what i think..... do I frame a scene within the thick black frame (i.e. the demarcated area INSIDE the thick black frame) or from the 'safe area' markings in the corners......

thanks Tyler...as usual haha!

I'm going to be shooting 16mm for scanning only....not for projection at all.....any advice for that based on what you wrote so kindly for me......

watch the stuff on youtube about it.....its probably the most advanced meter in the world right now...I think the Spectra is riding on the fact its made in America and all the rest of it.....although I have never used one...have always had GOSSEN myself....the Mastersix and the Spot Master II back in the day

I want to 'upgrade' my Gossen Mastersix to have incident/spot meter all-in-one and am looking at two models (for use in both stills and motion picture FILM and digital use): I'm looking at the Spectra Cine spot meter (the IV with the spot adapter) against the Sekonic 858-D Looking to get experienced user comments as opposed to buying into the marketing they have published....obv the latter is a veery new meter Thanks in advance