Clark Nikolai

Bravo! I like this version the most. The grain seems more convincing somehow. (It's hard to describe why.) I think the grain could be dialled back a touch in a few of the shots but it'll depend on what you're doing with it I suppose. I'm watching it 4K which shows the grain nicely and when I switch it to 480p, there's no grain at all but the colours and levels of brightness still look like it might've been shot on film. I think you're there (or perhaps very close.) You might want to create a handful of variations on this so you can choose different ones for different content to see which one works best for any given clip.

Interesting about diffusion in the mids only (I think that's what you mean). It could be that film has different levels of detail in different tonal ranges. (I don't know.) These seem to have something not quite right about it to my eyes. The grain seems too fast, as in 30 FPS, not 24. Also the grain looks electronic and not chemical. Just something about it and the way it changes each frame.

To my eye this seems like the right amount. The shot of the coffee maker seems to have noticeable vertical gate weave that I don't see in the other shots and it was distracting. Are there adjustments for vertical separate than horizontal gate weave? If so then maybe only use horizontal. But other than that one shot it just seemed "natural" for the grainy look. By "natural" it's of course what I've come to associate with grainy film from a certain era. Later cameras were so stable that they didn't have any really.

Just FYI, if anyone on here is looking for one. This one is 5000 Euro. https://cinematography.com/index.php?/forums/topic/104495-for-sale-digital-bolex-d16/

It's really good. I'll have to watch a few times again to analyze more but my first impression is that this type amount of grain I associate with the 1970s and the cameras used back then for 16mm had some gate weave. Maybe try a touch of that and see.

Much better than the previous batch. I like where you're going with this. I think the grain is a bit too extreme now but it's not unrealistic. It would depend on the film stock as some film pictures are this grainy. The ones where I think don't work for me are the 5th ( the trees) and the 8th (city shot). Both of these I think the grain is too much. The one of the trees as well looks like there's more detail in the leaves than that amount of grain would show.

Good article. Interesting discussion of both the technical aspects as well as how they support the story. Thank you. At the bottom, the article shows the camera set ups in this image. https://www.afcinema.com/IMG/jpg/les_outils_du_tournage.jpg

Thank you. I'm glad people are liking it. It was a lot of work and took two years to make. Most of the time by myself, out in the city with a tripod and camera. I met a lot of people doing it since the camera looks unusual. (It's common in Vancouver to see someone filming as it's a big film production town and has six film schools but people out shooting usually have more modern squarish looking cameras.) The themes and aesthetic came out of the photography I had been doing for several years already. I had been framing buildings to make geometric shapes. This was basically adding motion to that series. The music was from a friend who had I got to know when he acted in a short I did a few years earlier. https://testcardmusic.bandcamp.com It hasn't had a festival screen it yet but it did get an award in Sevilla, Spain. https://www.instagram.com/seviff.spain/p/DUTcVcGDLq7/?img_index=16

Pretty cool. I found this article about the cameras used in each of the films at Cannes. It's pretty interesting. This film is shown. (Alphabetical under M. About two-thirds of the way down. ) https://www.indiewire.com/gallery/cannes-2026-cameras-lenses-arri-alexa-35/screenshot-231/ There's a picture of the director holding a camera. It's so rigged up that it's hard to see but looks like a Digital Bolex with the PL mount. It says they used two of them, a PL mount one and a C mount one. The second one not rigged up and hand held. Looks like they used a variety of lenses too. In the picture it looks like a vintage Angenieux zoom. There's mention of a TV lens and CCTV primes. Here's a quote. That's been my experience as well. I shot 16mm some decades ago on a 1970s Bolex and a 1930s Victor (that had been fished out of a dumpster behind an NFB office.) so I'm familiar with that and of course many different video cameras over the years. The Digital Bolex is closer to a 16mm camera than to a video camera in both how you operate and how the image looks.

I use it both for my own films as well as I get hired to do music videos and events. I just finished a feature length experimental film shot entirely with it called Shapes, Colours, Patterns. (There's a trailer for it on my Tumblr. https://clarknikolai.tumblr.com ) I'm very happy with it, and of course the image from that camera is gorgeous. Something I've discovered with the Digital Bolex's footage, is that it looks the best projected rather than shown on an LCD screen. I'm now working on a new project. It's a narrative, collectively written, performed and crewed by myself and three other artists. It's set in the present day in east Vancouver where three artists are working on their art projects. The characters are based on the people involved and their real lives (but fictionalized so we have more freedom.) We're using French New Wave and Availablism methods. Quick half-day shoots. It's self funded, using what we have around us, the equipment we already own, locations we already have, etc. (I think so far all we've spent on it was some coffees.) I plan to enter it in to film festivals when it's done. Here's a picture with the camera mounted backwards on the shoulder rig. This is so the camera operator can walk forward while the talent is behind them and they don't need a spotter. It's tricky to learn how to move but it's going okay. It works fine with a wide lens but not easy when zoomed in (as you'd expect.) We have to flip the image in the monitor or it's disorienting.

Here's a pic from a shoot I did last December. I don't know the brand of the shoulder rig (as I got it used on Craigslist), the EVF is the (sadly discontinued) Kinotehnik LCDVFE. The camera attaches to the rig with a Niceyrig quick-release plate (that has feet). The lens is a vintage Angenieux 17-68mm zoom with a screw on wide angle adapter, on top is a Niceyrig top handle holding an Audio-Technica stereo mic and a monitor mount. A bit hard to see is an attachment that goes below the rails between the shoulder pad and the grips for two wireless mic receivers.

So true. Our training and experience give us an eye for composition and framing. Last winter when I was in Mexico, as a tourist, I started shooting with my iPhone. I thought it was boring so I used an app that replicates grainy, dirty Super8 and shot with that. I realized that I also needed shoot like another person. I needed naïveté in my shooting, so I chose "1960s dad with his Super8 camera". So, I did things like shoot the waves in the ocean with a slow pan to the shore, signs, cars going by, etc. It was refreshing not to have to be so perfect all the time. (Now unfortunately I have to edit it and the footage is not exciting me, but that's a different story.)

Right. Recently I did some transfers from films for someone. Most were from the 1950s but some were 1960s and '70s. It's noticeable how the film stock improved. When they switched to Super 8 it was very much better having the larger area used for the image but it was more than that. Even the Regular 8 from the 1960s was better than earlier stocks. The collection came with the original boxes that were returned in the mail from the lab and it's the same stock and ASA, but manufactured 10 years later. Hope you're having fun figuring this out. I love this kind of thing.

Nice stuff. I like this project. Discovering what the elements are that you like about film and training your eye to notice the tiny things that give it away that it's not film. These are all good but I like the second batch here the most. The grain is high in a still but might be okay when moving. The shot of the button on the pole is the one that to me shows that it's not film. I can see that there's more resolution there than the grain would be giving, making the grain look like an overlay. (Maybe add a tad blur to the image, or use a smaller grain effect?) I find using vintage zoom lenses meant for 16mm cameras to just naturally give that look. When you zoom in it's a lever that you move, which looks different than turning a lens ring or a motor turning a lens. How a camera's shape and weight affects your camera work is important for the look. Some Super16 cameras were shoulder mount so maybe get something that replicates that type of movement. I now have a shoulder rig for my D16 and it gives a different feel to the footage's movement than pistol grip type of shooting. I prefer it really. I don't use the pistol grip ever. (Too bad because the grip looks cool.) Another thing, which probably doesn't apply for your project, is what someone in the past would have shot and what they would have concentrated on and framed. That's another thing altogether. Are you thinking of also shooting so that it looks like it was shot in the past or is it replicating someone in the present day shooting film?

These are really nice. I've been to Japan once but these don't remind me of it much. I was staying in a suburb and didn't go out at night much. It looks like I missed some great things. You know when it's night time like this, I don't even notice lens imperfections much. It just seems natural when under that kind of light.