Jesse Hanna

Ok thanks for letting me know so quickly. I have a cheap 16mm camera so I guess I'll just pair that with the 100ft and use the 400 with the 400 mags. What I meant regarding the splicing was not projecting, but if I could just take 4 100' rolls and splice them together to make it 400. But with what you said about the right core I don't think that it's possible.

Apologizes if this is a stupid question, but I've only used Bolex and Arriflex cameras and loaded the film directly into the camera. I'm going to be shooting with a Aaton Xtera Super 16mm that comes with 400 ft magazines, but not sure if I can use the 100 ft rolls or if I should just wait to buy a 400ft. Is it just the same loading/unloading process, but stop when the counter hits 100ft, instead of 400ft? Also I've edited on 16mm flatbeds before and I know you can splice together 16mm film, but because the film will be negative, is that not a good idea? Or too risky because of the perfs need to be lined up perfectly?

I can't believe you measured for 200 and got the image to look this good. I'm wondering what would the footage look like if it was actually metered for 500. The focusing I didn't really notice because it's mostly groups of people and not a specific subject. It also looks like it was overcast, so you bringing 500T seemed like the right choice. Those converted Krasnogorsk-3 really seem like hit or miss so while they seem significantly cheaper then built super 16 cameras, I'm always worried I'll end up with nothing usable. Same with most of the 16mm converted cameras. Are you only able to load a 100ft with that camera? Or could you put a 400' on it as well? Did you have to wind up the motor every 30 seconds or so too?

Not to derail this thread, but isn't the film camera makers (bolex,arri,etc), film companies (kodak,fuji) and film developers and their inflated prices somewhat responsible for their own demise? The people who work in film know that the people who make film are wealthy so they charge ridiculously high costs and then rather then adjust their costs, they just say film is over. Film development labs like FotoKem are extremely expensive, and the actual costs to develop film are no where near what they charge, but it is what they charge because they know their clientele. This is true of film camera manufacturers as well. A 35mm film camera is a big metal box, with a motor and a piece of glass on it and they charge hundreds of thousands of dollars for it, and haven't lowered the costs in decades. Kodak and Fuji(RIP) did this too. Even now, you see kodak trying to turn 8mm into some hipster sheek aesthetic and market to that urban outfitters crowd. It used to be that the costs for film were much cheaper and easily accessible, a lot of homes had access to 16mm and part of that access helped the french new wave and independent film era of the 60's and 70's, then vhs came, and the film companies kept their prices high, and now are surprised that people have moved away from them. Aesthetically I like film more then digital, but as a business I'm kind of glad these film people are loosing business. They know longer have a monopoly and are seeing what happens when you introduce competition. And part of me thinks film wouldn't be in such dire trouble if the people who ran it weren't so old and stubborn and actually tried to innovate their products and adjust to the marketplace. /End of Rant

I used a tape measure to measure focal length, no adapters or filters and I used the sekonic L-398 light meter. Everyone has given me a lot of advice on what I can do, and I will try to do this when I make the next film. Hopefully there will be an improvement and I can show it here. Thanks again everyone .

Thanks for the advice, I've read a lot about filmmakers from the french new wave era, or during the 60's/70's easy riders days and it seems like they didn't have much in terms of legal accountability, yet now it seems like it's heavily enforced by festivals. In a lot of ways it seems like it's harder to make films independently now then it was back then.

Yeah that looks great. I've got a lot I can do to try and improve my image for the next film. Thanks for all the comments and advice everyone. The footage you posted Karim doesn't look like it has any professional lighting, other then natural, and the house is just a house with plain white walls and not dressed in anyway and it looks great. Reminds me a lot of the look of 70's films, like Harold and Maude or The Long Goodbye.

I've shot on private locations before and gotten releases, but I have heard stories from indie filmmakers going to locations without permits and shooting, some private and some public. I think Robert Rodriguez and Ed Burns have mentioned they've shot scenes without getting permission. Even some dvd commentaries have mentioned this. I have seen some festival submissions require certain clearances, but I'm not sure how strict this is. If a film doesn't have a permit, or release from a location, does that keep it from being shown in festivals or sold to distributors?

The footage looks really good, I can't believe you didn't meter it and was still able to get something out of it. Also thanks for the nightmares.

The film was purchased new, directly from Kodak, but it was already expired when they sent it. I think by two years. I was told that the film still works and that it's normal to use expired film. I had the film stored for probably six months or so, so it's a good 2.5 years expired by the time I used it. The lens was pretty old as well, but was processed right after. When you guys use HMI's or Tungsten, do you worry about the light source being so direct/bright that it doesn't fit the logic of the space? If I put HMI's outside the windows and blasted them in, I could see narratively that making sense, but if I put them inside the room, it creates such a sharp contrast that it feels out of place. I've always preferred soft boxes or bounce boards to make the lighting feel more natural. I know this is the exact opposite for what I was asking about with regards to the high contrast for this short, but generally speaking, do you use HMI's for interiors/exteriors? Thanks for all the comments so far.

Part of the reason I'm asking this is because I had a camera reservation ( few years ago) at film independent and when I came to pick up the camera they wanted to charge thousands on my credit card in order for me to rent it, so I wasn't able to and had to make do with a camera a friend of mine had on such short notice. Places like sharegrid and kitsplit offer insurance you can buy, but I don't know if they're expecting you to have 20,000 in collateral or something like that. I just wasnt sure how other people check out equipment, if they're not on larger productions with larger budgets.

Hello Everyone, thank you for replying. I'll try to respond in order. Phillip - I had shot on the camera before, but only black and white. The camera was a Bolex H-16, with a pretty wide lens. I don't remember what it was, except that I think(it's been a while so I don't remember) that the 16mm lens is like half the normal measurement of a traditional camera.. It was very wide, I believe less then 10mm. I believe the lens was as old as the camera. 1950's I think Yale did the transfer and sent it over as a .mov, I did not use any filter. I don't know what rate the film means. David - I didn't supervise the transfer, Yale just did a telecine transfer. I believe best light is the standard, although I'm not sure. When I metered the actor it was pretty even regardless where we shot it, even with the windows shut. I believe it was mostly between 4 and 5.6, never brighter. The scene in which the character is at the door and has a small light on his face I had to open it up all the way and I believe it was a 1.4. It was shot at 24fps, but there was no sync. ISO was 500. I've experimented with film before and decreased the iso and pushed/pulled in development and the footage came back unusable so for this I just played it safe and shot 500. When you say the room was shot against the windows where the light is coming from, do you mean to say that the higher concentrated areas of light will give the film stronger contrast as it has more of a dynamic range, where as shooting further away from the window the light was more spread out and even, thus the blander lighting? I am also color blind so forgive my stupidity. I've heard that T is generally more grainy then D, and that 16mm is going to be more grainier then Super16mm, so I'm planning on shooting 250D for the next film, but I'm not sure how practical that would be for indoor scenes. Karim - Thank you for the critique, the story was thought up in a day with one actor, one crew member and me on two rolls of film. We shot it in about an hour. It was mostly an experiment in footage then trying to make an actual story. Part of the footage reason the footage is soft is because of how grainy it was, and the only way to get rid of the grain, in premier (or after effects? dont remember) was to blur the image. I'm including some screengrabs of what the raw footage came back as. Carson - The lens was very old and the film was shot at 5.6 and below that so I wasn't aware that higher produced sharper image. I'm including images of the raw stills. I was hoping with the close up shot that the image would be somewhat like Gordon Willis, but instead it's just washed out and out of focus. I appreciate all the comments and advice everyone is giving. I've had made shorts before and had lots of technical problems so this is really helpful to me.

I'm new here and not sure where to post this, so I'm sorry if this is the wrong spot. But I've seen a lot of camera rental places offer relatively cheap rates for cameras, but then require insurance or credit card charge with somewhere upwards of $20,000. My school had an insurance program that worked with some local rental houses, but not with others. Is there a way around this or do you just not rent from certain places? When I say "around this", I don't mean illegal, but are there someplace that don't actually expect you to have $20,000 and just want to make sure you're responsible for possible damages. The places I was looking at were larger rental houses like, Lens Rentals or Borrow Lens, GearRental.com (Local Rental House) and Kitsplit.com, or sharegrid.com which are local and individual people you rent from.

I shot a short film wit 500t on one location. The footage came back noisy, and I tried to fix it in post (premier) and it did what it could, but the image is now blurry and a little out of focus. It was an older 16mm non-sync camera, not super 16mm too. I'm planning on shooting another film using super16mm but don't want to make the same mistakes. The lighting of the room was great. We shot indoors of a banquet hall and the room had dark curtains and streaks of light coming through the windows. We metered the actor and adjusted it somewhat, and the footage is viewable, which is a plus, but it's just bland. The contrast and colors are gone and the image is boring. I don't know what I am doing wrong. I didn't want to push/pull stock or under/over expose the lighting as I have done this before and gotten back black footage. Not sure if this is lighting specific or film stock, but I thought I would ask. Any advice, tips or help would be appreciated. The short is below, but I'll try to upload uncorrected footage/images when I get a chance.