Ethan Bowes

I am looking to start shooting films, with a preference for older 70s and 80s art film. I've noticed a lot of people recommending either the Lumix GH4 or the Black Box in my price range (anywhere below 2000 dollars). I want the best quality film-like camera on the market, so I can get a feel while I practice before moving towards arri studio or even older 35mm 35 2-BL. Are there any other camera's that are better than a GH4 or similar? What interests me about the GH4 (so I've heard) is that taking the 4k video compresses down into a more detailed 1080 image. It also is 1/4 film SLR, and should work with most lenses out there. Last of all, what would be the most film-like lens for nature and portraits. Should I be looking for either prime or anamorphic lenses, and if so, which ones? Cheers.

Ah, this is correct. I am a perfectionist and stickler for detail. If there is any sort of difference from the aforementioned films, any trace of digital, why even bother? Most people are travelling in the opposite direction because they not only live in a society of but are themselves cosmopolitan capitalists. Film is the holywood agenda. To woo over the largest quantity, to bring riches, sex, applauds from the herd. The palette of these people are, 'cutting edge technology' 'effects' and 'realism'. Tarkovsky seemed rather to see film as a medium to portray a very wholesome view of the individual, apart from an 'industry's demands'. He slowed down life itself, to a point where he could capture all auras, colors, and poetic moments in between the hustle and bustle of an organized world. Direct access. Yes, he explores his surroundings, taps into their frequencies--and yet, aside from the surroundings, with the medium of film and its appearance, portrays a poetic vision of life. As much as I am influenced by Tarkovsky, who to me is the king of form, I would like to start my own form and design, going far beyond that realm. A cheaper film camera like a Bolex seems ideal, as to start, one is simply testing the waters, and finding out about light, visuals, environment and all the other technical details. I am located in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. No idea about access as the journey has just begun. The city holds 300,000 people. Perhaps Vancouver is a more plausible location? The Mirror, Nostalghia, and Stalker are currently the end-point of cinema. Cheers.

Morning. My apologies for not replying sooner but my computer time is limited. I would like to thank everyone for their candid and specific replies. This is very helpful to know. I am willing to spend more time the hard way if I am to find the same result for less capital. If, in the future, I would be able to get any funding, or at-least a salary job (I'm 23 working a minimum wage job), perhaps these tools would be beneficial. Does how smooth and steady it pulls the film through affect the end result, shutter movement etc, affect the imagery? You say shutter speed. So, some cameras can take more precise images of a person running for example? Sounds like Super 16mm is the more reasonable option. I think editing digital, not only sounds less painstaking, but would give one versatility and a whole host of commands available at the click of a mouse. So why not? How would you be able to match up facial expressions with the diction? Aren't they a bit above my budget? I can certainly find the lenses, but am I still getting the replicated look of early 70s 80s films? Which books do you suggest? I will continue to reply here. I have read all of the posts over. Need more free time on the internet. Again, thanks for the replies!

The headway I've made here is, 1) It really matters not in the film world what body you use, as this is merely a box to store information, with no attributes that change depending on model. What matters is a mixture of vision/film/lens/post-processing. 2) The only difference, then, for film cameras is if it's 16mm or 35mm, if the motor is an issue as related to sound, and the weight. With digital we'd take into consideration megapixels or if it's HD etc? So, wouldn't my best bet (atleast if I'm a beginner) if I prefer the film look to digital, be to buy a CP16R and a nice Zeiss lens? You can get a CP16R package for $1000. I'm curious, why would anyone buy an ARRI SRII for bucket-loads more if it serves the same function?

Am I missing something? Isn't it the Arri that produces the certain look of those notable films? I have noticed that the character of 80s films appear distinctly different from the 70s. Or is it lens? I absolutely hate the look of modern filmography. The 'pure realism' of digital takes away all character, and I have noticed barely any distinction between most modern film-makers. Same in the camera world, from SLR's to DSLR's. Stalker has a very panoramic and detailed look to it that I haven't noticed in other films. Where do I start trying to attempt something similar? Well. I would try to steer clear of paying films. The film is to capture my ultimate vision, not to fall into any criteria to attract viewers. To me, the look of the 70s tops anything else. How much does a blimp cost? Also, where can I dig into cinematographic knowledge on the basics of film production?

Evening. I'm desirous to get into cinematography. I have plenty of stories, images and locations in my head, and my requirements aren't all that high. First, I am not a fan of cinema style later than Tarkovsky's Sacrifice (1983), or most holywood-esque film. There is something atmospheric and beautiful about the aesthetic of a handful of 70s films that tend to capture a certain occult magnificence--Stalker, The Shining, Barry Lyndon, Fanny and Alexander, Nostalghia, World on a Wire, etc. Well. My goal is to work towards this type of aesthetic. All I need is the right set of camera/lens/parts, since most of my shots are going to involve the wilderness, myself, and a few friends, with costumes and set pieces I am working on. Now, with that background in my mind, here are my questions: 1) Most of these films use Arri. I was looking at the Arri IIC. Is this the best option for this type of aesthetic? My budget is from $1-3k for the equipment. Is this too low, too high? Is the IIC the best approach? 2) What kind of lenses are the sharpest for this kind of look? Are they expensive? Can one still buy lenses from the 70s? Are there certain cine-lenses suited for landscapes, or for portraits, or macro? 3) I notice the motors on these camera's are very loud. How does one film scenes with the rumbling in the background? 4) What is the average price for these types of cameras? What parts are needed, and what are some precautions I should take in the marketplace? 5) How heavy are these cameras?