Patrick Cooper

And in a shock move, Atkins Technicolour in South Australia announced that they will no longer be processing E6 slide film. A big blow to still photographers. Apparently, Atkins are one of the oldest pro labs in Australia.

Ive just checked out the intro for Cop Shop (a show which I haven't seen in many long years) and it looks like that one was shot on video tape rather than film.

Here's a blast from the past.

A great experience. Always cool watching film crews in action. I don't recall that show but I do have some vague recollection of Cop Shop. I also have rather fond memories of Chopper Squad!

Yea such a dramatic change during that time period. And not a change that I'm all that happy with. It didn't seem all that long ago when the bigger budget TV shows over here were shot on film. I kind of feel privileged now being an extra on a movie production that shot on 35mm film - Hey Hey It's Esther Blueberger. And a very enjoyable experience too. They were filming with two Panavision cameras and shooting on Fuji film. I imagine local movie productions these days are a very different beast.

Mark, thank you for your reply. Yea I admit Ive been out of the loop for a bit. That's good to hear that there has been a local resurgence in 16mm and that there are processing and scanning facilities still available. The only movie film I have shot in the last few years has been super 8 (and not a lot of it.) And thanks for the interest in the possible music video for my song. I do have some ideas for it. I would need quite a few things to come together to get it off the ground. So it's very much up in the air at the moment. Definitely wouldn't be any time soon. I'm also working on some other songs as well (the lyrics.) Hopefully, I can team up with another song writer for the composing (the instruments.) And then there's funding too of course. Generally, I prefer simplicity when it comes to music videos. Some of my favourite clips have simply been showcasing a band performing (either on stage or some other setting.) I admit that there are some music videos that are a bit too flashy or gimmicky for my tastes. But sometimes doing something different can work really well. For example, I like 'Take On Me' by Aha with the rotoscoping and the comic illustrations. And of course Michael Jackson's 'Thriller' is a classic. Then again, with AC/DC, I generally prefer their earlier music videos with them performing in a minimalist studio setting (or outdoors.) I find a lot of the later AC/DC MVs are a bit too flashy with the band performing in these elaborate sets with huge numbers of extras.

So I'm curious about the current state of 16mm film production in Australia. Not too long ago, I was shocked to find out that major lab processing of 35mm motion picture film has been largely scrapped in this country. So supposedly, there are no more Australian movies being shot on 35mm film anymore. Though what about 16mm film production for the small screen? It didn't seem all that long ago when I was an extra on the set of the TV series McLeods Daughters and they were shooting S16 on that show. Are there many TV series, TV commercials or music videos that are shot on 16mm film in Australia these days? Or has digital video mainly taken over? I'm hoping that there are still some production crews that are shooting music videos on 16mm film in Oz. Ive written a song which is very much 1980s inspired hard rock music (mainly the lyrics.) One day, if funding allows, I'd like to gather a bunch of musicians and record the song in a studio, release as it a single and hire a crew to shoot a music video for it as well. And it would be awesome if the MV could be shot on 16mm to emulate the look of the older MVs like with Cold Chisel, The Divinyls or Midnight Oil etc.

Singin' In The Rain (1952) That awkward transition from silent cinema to 'talkies.'

Sorry for the late reply. I must say that you have a very impressive collection of trailer material! That Loch Ness Monster flick was nicely shot and gave me a few laughs as well. And I recognised Countess Dracula. Ive seen that one. To me, it was one of the better Hammer films. And I can see from the other clip that a lot of elements were added to give the film degradation look. Looks like the reference material you supplied gave you quite a few ideas of what you could add in post. Must have been fun analysing all the 'defects.'

Webster, thank you for your reply. Very insightful with details about the VFX. Great job by the way. And my gosh, it looks like I was fooled. I honestly thought that Planet Terror originated on film. I have seen Sin City and that particular Rodriguez film did have a very digital look about it. In the behind the scenes video I linked above, Rodriguez does say that for certain scenes, he does shoot rehearsals on video. So by saying that, it sounded like he uses a different medium when the actual shooting takes place. And I made the assumption that that medium was film. I guess my assumption was wrong.

A few nights ago, I watched 'Planet Terror' by Robert Rodriquez for the first time. I really enjoyed the retro vibe and it reminded me of some of the 80s films I have watched. It was certainly a visual feast with over the top action, gore, zombie shenanigans and beautiful women with attitude. There's also a cameo by Tarantino. The film has a very retro look about it and I'm wondering how this was achieved. Obviously, the scratches, splices and instances of reddening contribute to that as discussed in this behind the scenes special. Additionally, I'm wondering if they used reversal film at all to help capture that retro look. On 'The Life Aquatic' by Steve Zissou, reversal film was used in a few segments to create a vintage nature documentary look which was very effective. Though I don't think too many filmmakers would shoot an entire feature on reversal film so I guess that wasn't the case with 'Planet Terror.' I couldn't find any information on the film stocks that were used for this production. I don't suppose the release print was struck from another positive print instead of an internegative?

I was just wondering if there are any alternative ways of contacting Andreas - the moderator of the filmshooting.com super 8 forum? It seems that he won't reply to e-mails. I'm having technical issues with that site and I can't get through to him. That forum has been operating for a very long time and is certainly a wealth of information. Though it's a pity that it's not as active as it used to be.

Woops - looks like a Mavic was only shown in the very beginning. The super 8 camera was mounted to an FPV racing quadcopter. They can be built from parts. They're usually several hundred dollars + FPV goggles. Yea adding a 16mm camera would be awesome. Indeed - small and light would be the way to go. The GIC could be an interesting choice though it does have a high profile. A rectangular shape would be good but preferably longish rather than vertical. I wonder if one of those Kodak 16mm cameras would be light enough. I also recall another old 16mm camera that was small, compact and rectangular (length ways) and likely took 50 feet of film. Ive forgotten the name. And yea I would keep away from those wind turbines too.

I think what was achieved in GIMP looks good with that frame grade. By the way, was it necessary to shoot between f16 and f22? I guess you wanted to maximise the depth of field. Also guessing there was no ND filter. Using such a small aperture with a very small format like super 8 can be a risk with regards to diffraction. Though your frames look reasonably sharp so no issues there. I must say that the light conditions must have been very bright. Ive shot 50D once on a sunny day with no ND filter at 24fps though my aperture wasn't anywhere near as small. May have been closer to f8 but I can't remember.

I came across this tonight while I was browsing youtube: So nice to see super 8 aerial footage. I didn't realise that a Mavic could lift that kind of payload.

Jon, yes that's a good explanation on the cross eye viewing method. Initially, that was something I really struggled with until I found this excellent tutorial which allowed me to get the hang of it: http://www.3dphoto.net/forum/index.php/topic,10.0.html Ive heard about those jumping jack bull ants and seen footage of them but Ive never encountered them in real life. Yea Ive heard about their reputation (not to be messed with.)

The manslaughter charge against Alec Baldwin has been dropped. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-21/alec-baldwin-has-charges-dropped-in-fatal-accident-on-rust-set/102250264

If you're shooting on negative film, you don't have to be so precise with your exposure calculations. Actually, some overexposure would likely be beneficial. If you've settled on 1/2 a second, you could select 1 second or a little slower on your light meter.

Not too long ago, I tried some 3D macro photography for the first time. I adapted a Canon FD 50mm f3.5 macro lens to a Panasonic G7 M4/3 camera and made use of a slide bar to vary the distance between photos. The subject is an Australian bull ant (Myrmecia genus.) These ants are pretty big with large serrated mandibles at the front and a venom-loaded sting at the back (on the tip of the abdomen.) Below is an anaglyph so you'd need a pair of red / cyan glasses to view properly. There's also a cross-eye version in colour so no need for glasses with this one:

Yes, the Australian 60 Minutes special is very informative regarding the events of that day. I had already posted a link on the previous page.

There was a recent Australian 60 Minutes special about the events of that day on the set of Rust. The whole story can be seen here:

Actually, here's an interesting point to consider. Wood is better at dampening vibration compared to metal. So considering that, maybe I'll ditch the idea of a metal mast yet again and settle on wood.

Edit: Yea I admit using a right hand / L shaped bracket on a round tube is probably not the wisest thing to do. I could use a square shaped piece of metal or wood to attach these kind of brackets to. My camera clamp should probably be able to be used on a square shape as well as a tube. Again, I'm not an expert on building things but Ive got a feeling that two L shaped brackets on either side of the 'mast' would probably be stronger than the alternative I proposed above.

Actually, going to back to the original idea of using a metal pole extending from a timber base, I wonder if a bracket would be strong enough. I admit I am not an expert on these kind of things (building stuff like this.) It would have my body weight leaning against the pole at times so it would need to be extremely strong. Would a bracket like this be sufficient? Ive got a feeling that it may not be enough. I'm happy to be corrected. Perhaps I could have an elevated wooden block above the base and the pole attached to that block with the bracket. Or alternatively an L shaped bracket across the timber base and up against the pole. Maybe two L shaped brackets - one on each side of the pole?

Actually, I wonder if I should have two tubes instead of one. The original idea was to have a single tube that I could attach the camera to via a clamp and also hold on to as well when I'm riding. Though thinking about this more, I guess there's a chance that when I'm in motion, I could grip the tube more tightly or maybe even lose a tiny bit of balance and compensate by putting more pressure on the tube. And those kind of things could pass on more vibrations on to the camera. I suppose I could have two tubes - one in front of the other. I admit that would look really strange on a scooter but I guess it would be functional (from a filmmaking perspective.) Unfortunately, it would make it more bulky. Or maybe have two tubes side by side. Hold on to one tube and mount the camera on to the other.