Jon O'Brien

The OP might like to learn about drones. Was talking to a pro video-maker yesterday and he does just about all his shooting with them. He showed me a film he made, and all the shots, interior or exterior, even with anything like an 'old-fashioned' dolly shot, was done with a camera on a tiny drone. He mentioned the Red cameras and described them as being too heavy. His video looked slick and professional but I found it uninteresting ... to me it looked, well, too slick and professional. I much prefer the wobbly dolly shots in the old black & white film camera images one sees in, for instance, Random Harvest (1942). Of course, to each his own.

How about asking Les Bosher in South Wales? He might be able to help. http://www.lesbosher.co.uk/

Thus, the large number of women in orchestras today (to take an example in the arts). They marry men who can support them. They wait until they find a good doctor, solicitor, mining engineer,or tenured academic to marry - someone who just doesn't play at all (may be talented and interested but hasn't got the time). And it works out well. For men who are creative it can be a bit more difficult, but with patience things can work out. Or is my thinking wrong on this? It's just I've noticed a thing or two, in the arts.

"Faith, hope ... and a little bit of luck" - Alfred P. Doolittle, My Fair Lady Stay on course. Learn about that most amazing and sometimes difficult-to-find thing, faith. And above all be patient.

In my opinion there's something in that idea of starting out with a camera that actually looks like something a cinematographer/DP 'should' have stuck in front of their eye. Look can be important. My dad told me that once, when starting out on a job/ in a career. At least look the part, and go from there. It gives people confidence in you, or it can get the ball rolling at least. Filmmakers/cinematographers with SLR-looking things, no matter what whizz-bang gimbal thing etc they've got with it, still look like still photographers in my opinion. Yes, a small point to make, but worth thinking over. I'd get something that does the job superlatively, is affordable - so think mostly of lenses, will pay itself back soon so you can upgrade, and also looks like something associated with filming/videoing. Eg. a video camera that looks like one, not a DSLR.

Interesting. But "shooting" is also used for a film shoot.

Check out First Man (2018), S16 intercut with mostly 2 and 3 perf 35mm. I saw it on the big screen (digital) and it all looked fantastic. I've also got it on Blu Ray. The first part of the movie is S16. Looked just slightly grainy but great in the theatre. The rest of the movie is mostly 2 perf 35mm. The S16 was particularly good for the cockpit shots and when they filmed in the command module/LEM. Walking on the moon set was shot in 65mm. But if you mean making 35mm prints, super 16 might be quite grainy. Then again, it's certainly been done with success. Modern audiences, accustomed to crystal clear digital imagery, might take a while to acclimatize to it.

I think it's fine to say "I'm doing some filming" when shooting scenes with a digital camera. Sounds so much better than "I'm videoing". What a mouthful. But you won't escape the reality that you're not shooting real celluloid. Not that many care a fig for that. I do.

I'm not in the film industry, but am having a talk with someone soon that might lead to something. But my inclination, and plan, is to get close to that camera and stick by it. The electrical/gaffer idea is excellent, and would likely lead to excellence too, but just on a sheer 'opportunities that may arise' factor I'd get next to that camera and stay there. You can always learn more about lighting, a hugely important thing, as you become more involved with the camera. That's my thoughts on it anyway.

It really always depends on context I think. And as Bruce said, keep it in reserve and then it will be more powerful. Also, sometimes less is much more. In Deliverance (1972), when the cars first pull up at the isolated community to get directions and fill up, close to the start of the film, the camera does a subtle forward dolly shot towards the cars as they pull up directly towards camera. I don't know why the cinematographer did that, it wasn't an obvious move (to me), but it has a subtle charm to it. It just looks good. But you hardly notice it. Put a few subtle moves like that into a picture and it can be a big thing in my opinion. I can't even say though what the psychological effect of such shots is. Just slightly upping the coolness factor?

Is it cheaper, digital? Anyway, think of a pair of shoes. What's best, a cheaper pair, or a more expensive pair. Think about that a moment. It's deep.

But let's make it 3 years 🙂

You know those tiny little pre-fab garden sheds, designed to keep a mower in, some tools, and maybe a small workbench underneath the window for a guy to get away from the house for a bit and while away some time on a project/hobby? I will never forget the day I arrived at the end of a long and bumpy dirt track out in the countryside, and there in one of these tiny sheds were two enormous Victoria 8 35mm/70mm film projectors, patiently waiting for their chance to rattle into life once more ... They were shown to me by an aging projectionist, quite famous in the area.

I still wonder occasionally if there will be an eventual return of the film projector in a lot of cinemas. You know, not to replace digital projection (which in my opinion is fine for showing film-shot movies on), but to provide a bit of variety for that section of humanity that cares to see films shown on, er, film.

Just beautiful pictures. Film is perfect for this particular project. Very inspiring to see.