Clark Nikolai

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.

Seems impressive. Checking out their press release there's some great stuff. It says raw photo saving but only a mention of high bitrate video, not what codec it uses. Lots to love with this one. https://gopro.com/en/us/news/gopro-announces-three-cameras-mission-1-2026

How about doing a music video for a musician?

I agree. I've been around computers since the '80s and Resolve just has too much clutter as well as non-intuitive locations for features. If it wasn't free for the non-pro version and wasn't multi-platform it wouldn't be as popular as it is. So many people I know use it only because it's free or they have a PC and can't run Final Cut. They waste so much time trying to do things though. I found it interesting teaching FCPX to people who have edited before compared to those who have never. The ones who knew other NLEs found it spooky. Things seemed to be moving on their own and they didn't understand why. For those with other NLE experience it does take training. But for someone who has never used an NLE they get it very quickly. I've seen people up and editing away after only a half hour of instruction. It's had a renaissance since the initial freak-out when it was first launched. Lots of pros use it now. I've used it on TV series and on feature films. As an assistant editor it's a dream to work on. But the thing is, unlike that past, it's now pretty easy to move a sequence from one NLE to another so it kind of doesn't matter anymore what someone is using, you can manage to hand it off to someone else. You no longer have to use the same stuff as the others on the team. Sounds exciting. I guess that's my main suggestion; being able to appear simple when all you're doing is cutting and only show the detailed options when you need them.

Sounds interesting. I would say that FCP's magnetic timeline is what makes it so fast (once you learn it.) Also that you can hide all the clutter and make it look simple. But I don't want to discourage you on this project. Give it a try. For suggestions, I don't have many but I suppose being able to run on old hardware and old OS version. There are plenty old Mac Pro towers out there from 2010 still working away. Mostly places that do videotape digitizing in standard definition and people running old telecines where the software won't run on new computers. Good luck.

Last year I experimented with a Digital Bolex and an iOS app that recorded the gyroscopic data from the phone. I took the footage and the phone's sensor data in Gyroflow software and was able to stabilize the footage. It worked well and I was impressed by it but cumbersome in the field to shoot with as you have to start the app and then start rolling the camera, it was more trouble than it was worth for me at that time so I didn't continue with it. Now I hear about this new product called Niyien Senseflow A1. A tiny little thing that you can put in your cold shoe and only have to start it once per day. Seems pretty neat. I'm pondering getting one and trying it out. I'll let you know how it goes. Does anyone on here have one and can give their experience with it?

This reminds me of using my old Sony camcorder with the 5.1 surround sound microphone. I would shoot with it, then in post be able to isolate each channel and choose which one to use and ignore the ones that were just location noise. Pretty handy without much effort when shooting. This might be similar in that sense.

It seems there's a bit of a trend (at least with some YouTubers), to make your own cinema camera. Mathew Trahan is making a CinePi. Alt Frames, is also doing the CinePi project with his own mods. So, interesting. It's now become something that people can make their own if they want. I suspect it'll become a hobbyist thing much like how people are 3D printing their own film still cameras. David Bross was interviewed by CineD, (mostly about his app,) he talks a bit about how he got to try to "resurrect" the Digital Bolex. So, I've decided that in my new film I'm working on, which is set in the present day and involves a group of artists, that one of the characters will be making her own cinema camera. I'll use my Faux Bolex project parts for props. (Still have to get it fully working though.)

This is why I've never put my work on YouTube (and some people were suggesting that I do). I've had enough rejection in my life, I don't need to set myself as a target for more. Who needs to show the world their baby they put a lot of care in to making just to have some dweeb say that it sucks or something.

Me too. Ergonomically it's nice. Holding up to your eye with the loupe is good for both stability and keeping out sunlight from the screen. If it was all programmable, even with a third-party firmware hack, it would be great! I agree again. There's several nifty retro style cameras out now that are fun but just have such crappy image quality. The early days of digital photography had such a variety of shapes that were tried. Kind of like the Burgess Shale fossils. No, but CMOS has come a long way in image quality, global shutter and colour depth which are the things that people like about CCDs. A new camera could be made with a good CMOS sensor. My first miniDV camera was the Canon ZR10. Amazing little thing. Pretty good quality for its time and tiny. (Truly a palmcorder.) I shot lots of stuff with it. https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/dvc673.html If they came out with the same body and features, but recording HD, 2K or 4K in ProRes (or raw) to a card it would be great!

So, the Fujifilm Instax Mini Evo Cinema is about to come out and there are showcases of it on YouTube by the usual influencers. What do you think about it? It appears to be for rich kids to play with and make their cool vertical videos for TikTok, etc. but how would you design it differently to make "real" art with? In redesigning it, I would keep the same shape as it's good. I would have it record in square format in ProRes. Have the ability to add one's own film effects, such as to use OFX plugins like Dehancer and others (if this is possible in real-time) and put them on the dial. Remove the printer to make the whole thing smaller. For me, it's part gimmick and part useful. I can see how in fifteen years, long after it's been discontinued, it being a thing for artists to make art with (much like the Fisher Price Pxlvision camera is now).

There are two different people working on a DIY digital bolex. One is La Faux Bolex (pictured above) who is using an industrial camera that has the same image chip, connected to a Raspberry Pi and is using every open source thing out there. The other is David Bross who mentions in his video that he's in touch with, or working with Joe Rubinstein of the original Digital Bolex company. He doesn't say much about it though. I think it's great that people are working on this again. There were only so many of the original made. If you want the nice colour depth you either pay $12000 or you make your own.

Oh, for sure, eh? I remember forgetting to bring my external monitor cable with me so I used the little built in screen and while I could frame the shot up fine, I didn't see that there were rain drops on the lens until later when I got home. I understand though why they did it, if you have to skimp on something to save money (not just monitor but all the electronics to send a signal to it) to put resources elsewhere (like the image quality), then it makes sense to do it to the monitor. Probably every D16 owner uses an external monitor or EVF because of that. The idea of it being a handheld, one piece thing that you just pick up and start shooting isn't really true. It's too heavy to hold for a long time, the screen is tiny and low resolution (I don't have the shark fin mirror thing so don't know what that's like), there's no built in microphone. Still it's a great camera, amazing image and sound quality making it all worth it. Love it!

I had been searching awhile back for one of his videos I remember watching a few years ago and couldn't find it. He might just be pulling out of being online. I know several friends who have done that, (usually to stay sane.) Maybe he's not into photography anymore in his life. I don't think any of his videos were at all political, they were always about photography and his personal philosophy about it. The thing I got the most from his videos (aside from some pretty thorough reviews of equipment) was him saying that it's okay to go back to a place and take the same picture again and again, improving it each time. This was good advice for me. I guess I had some idea that every picture should be original. (Don't know where I got that idea and wasn't even conscious I held that belief before he helped me change it.)

Looks like someone else is making a "digital bolex". This guy in Paris. https://davidbross.fr/#about Former cinematographer is building one. I don't know what the plan is though, if it's going to be a cottage industry and he'll make and sell them or sell/give away the plans. Like the Faux Bolex guy, he's using the same sensor as the Digital Bolex. In this video he shows his menu system he's working on for it(which resembles Blackmagic's menus). He also has an iOS app that takes stills and video in open gate with the look of Kodak Vision3 500T film stock or Arri Alexa look. I played around with it and it seems fine. https://apps.apple.com/ca/app/digilog-camera/id6753213428

It looks good. The use of iPhones is interesting. The quality is now more than good enough for narrative. I would imagine the camera operator would have been seen as just another YouTube travel and food blogger and ignored. I don't know how "guerrilla" their approach was though. Did they inform the market authorities they were shooting or did they just go and do it? Story wise it seems fine. From my perspective (in a progressive city in another country) the left handed thing is so old fashioned that I wonder if it's truly a thing in Taiwanese culture or just a device for this story.

It looks like even the eagle is wondering why you aren't holding the camera vertically.