Clark Nikolai

I hadn't heard of it before. Thanks. It reminds me of when the chain store Restoration Hardware first opened up in Canada. They were buying up old patents and remaking products from 100 years ago. I would have nostalgia for these things (tools, kids toys, appliances) then realized I had never seen them before. Even my grandparents didn't have these things (Canada, before the 1980s had our own manufacturing and design of goods so typical appliances and tools that everyone had were different than the US ones that Restoration Hardware remade.) It was funny how easy it was to create an environment in a store that you would get caught up in. Good store though and unique product line. Sadly, about ten years ago though they did a redesign of the company (probably for more shareholder profit) and now it's just another Bed, Bath and Beyond knock-off. There's no reason to go there anymore.

I do think nostalgia, even for a time someone wasn't alive for, is a big factor. Another is authenticity, the title is telling on the comparison video. Which is "more authentic?". I think with so much fake stuff out there, or over polished, commercial media, that there's naturally a desire for something real. I know a young woman, in early 20s, who last year shot in miniDV for the nostalgia and poor quality. That surprised me because I remember when miniDV was considered high quality (compared to what low budget video makers had access to previously). Things move on. There's also trends, as the saying goes, when hemlines are down they can only go up. Now that people can do 8K pristine video easily and cheaply, then low quality and dirty is a refreshing change. About 12 years ago I was searching for, and found, a pocket camera that saved in raw. It was great and I loved how I was able to edit in post nicely, etc. This year it died and so I pulled out the old jpeg-only camera from the drawer and I've been shooting with it. Now, instead of cringing when I see the jpeg artifacts, I accept it as a normal look for a cheap snapshot and kind of a style that's now "approved" by others (at least on YouTube.) The ergonomics are great too. I can have it in my side pocket and while cycling, reach down with one hand, put my hand in the wrist strap, turn it on and take pictures without stopping. You can't do that with a phone. I sometimes wish that the amazing image stabilization and other features that iPhones have was available in a little pocket camera. Anyway, I can dig all sorts of things. It's just another brush to choose.

These are really nice. The best is the footprint. I played around with SpektraFilm but didn't do much with it. I should try it again.

Probably anything you do from now on is just for fun. What ways would you implement this? If it was me it would be a two or three layers, each with a lumakey for a brightness range, then different grain size on each one.

In my opinion, you've made it there!

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.