Jon O'Brien

Oooh yes, I agree. Tiny, subtle bit of gate weave is good in my opinion. Gives an unconscious feeling of freedom to the image. I'm not kidding. If film doesn't move just a bit, a tiny bit, in the gate, in my opinion something doesn't look quite right. It's like vibrato in violin playing in my opinion ... none at all and it sounds tight.

I always said Australians have a robust and innovative streak in them. They tend to see things in a unique and fresh way and come up with innovations. But that doesn't extend to field testing cameras by dragging them behind 4WDs haha (they don't call them SUVs in the bush)

I think the size of grain in film images as opposed to digital has to be perfect for a particular project. It has to be just right. Just enough and it adds interesting texture. Too much and it's a distracting noise that does nothing for the story or the subject. For 16mm at the moment I'd go for Kodak film stock but so far, in this test by Mark Wiggins at least, I really like the look of the Orwo for 35mm. The level of grain seems to be good for a gritty, period drama story. It has an almost hand made, artisanal look but still a high quality look if that makes sense. That's my first impressions anyway, fwiw.

I think it looks very nice. Would look fantastic also for 2 perf 35mm. Warm, earthy, with a slight grittiness and edge. Arty.

I hope you stay David! I always like reading your posts. You bring valuable and important knowledge, opinions, and information to this forum. Forgive us our foibles and failings. I know that I sometimes write dumb posts. Oh well.

Looks like a great addition to the cinema camera line up. Blackmagic is a fantastic Australian company that go from strength to strength. I've been saying for ages why persist with the DSLR-style still camera shape for a professional video camera? Beloved of still photographers who decide to get into video as well I think must be the answer. These filmmakers don't use a VF or heavy batteries and it all seems to be mostly hand held work, with some gimbal. Never see them with a VF, a tripod, or a shoulder mount. To each their own. Aapo, did you draw that strange creature holding the camera? Looks like a cross between a lizard, a dinosaur, and Batman -- not a kangaroo. Good to give drawing one a go, though. Tyler, what about the Canon C300 Mark III? Many seem to forget about the existence of this excellent camera. How is usable DR calculated from advertised DR? Canon say it gives 16 stops of DR when filming in CLog2 because of its dual gain sensor. Canon definitely provide the C300 Mk III with an excellent OLED VF.

If it's shots rather than single shot I'd put in a MCU shot of the dancer, looking down admiringly at the accordionist, who I'd seat on something like a vintage 'bentwood' chair (as at least they're called here). Very simple prop of tiny table next to the accordionist with a pewter mug of beer or small glass of wine. You could insert a shot of the accordionist's face smiling back, then tilt down to his fingers playing the keys. Very simple movement and perhaps with a slightly jerky movement of the tripod head. I can picture it in my mind. Maybe stick a mo on the accordionist. With a stripey shirt? Perhaps he could twirl a moustache end for the penultimate shot, with a knowing look from the dancer. Finish with a closing down aperture style matte on the dancer. Tells a little story in just a few seconds. As Brian and Dom have said, depends on the particular style of the era. I'm imagining a very simple scene. That's if it's shots rather than shot. You specifically mention a single shot though. Myself, I'd probably bend the rules if I could.

I could be wrong .... but I could be right too. Here's what I'd do if I had to film this at short notice. Yep, ask on cinematography.com and see what advice you get. First up. But I'd try to film in daylight, even though you're filming interiors. Okay, not easy to do, but it's what they often or always did (I didn't live back then of course haha). Use a low ISO setting if shooting digital. Ideally, shoot on Super 8 or 16mm. Keep the camera on a tripod at all times. Move the tripod for pans with a very simple movement. No flashy sorts of shots. Look at a few 1920's style films. That's it.

I agree, heavy camera with true hand held is better than light camera with image stabilisation. IS is not a good look. Or shoulder mounted is another way to go for mobility. Other than that, break out the gimbal or Steadicam. Or just put that camera on a tripod. Hey Samuel, hope you're doing well. Come back to cinematography.com!

I've noticed that a lot of cinematographers now seem to have one foot in the video gamer industry as well as filmmaking, at least in terms of where their true interest lies. Gaming is of course a 100% digital endeavour, with its own inimitable visual style. Many were also raised in the filmic traditions of the wedding videographer ie. lots of glidy side to side hand held shots, no interest in the tripod, a quick flashy and glib style. I'm not at all sure these are a good training ground for narrative cinematography and might explain why many gear head style DPs have no interest in film.

I'm glad that the big movers and shakers in the world realise that film is so good and that interest in film is finally coming back and that the industry seems to be readjusting after more than ten years of the digital revolution. There's now definitely a growing feeling amongst the more 'with it' in the creative arts that film might have advantages for dramatic narrative. Film gives more of a sense of theatre on the screen. If I was a director and could choose any format I'd simply go back to 35mm cinematography for most movies, with a bit of 65mm 5 perf for some more epic productions. I think IMAX is so expensive that it risks ruin. It wasn't originally intended for drama. 65mm 5 perf is as sharp and as clear and as impressive as you would ever need for dramatic works. For mere spectacle, yes, IMAX is better, but that's a very different kettle of fish. I suspect that the too eager change over to full digital production everywhere has to some extent damaged the film industry. Movies are less interesting than they used to be and it's because we've forgotten that it's not just good stories we need, it's stories told very well. A great story told not very well will not attract a soul. To tell a story well you need to make use of art and you need to know for a start what art even is. Film is a proven performer in captivating an audience because film is inherently a form of art, where as digital is a merely utilitarian process ideally suited to documentary, studio shows, news etc. But film is better for narrative drama and it's difficult to say just why it is, but it is. The film projector starts to roll, the audience goes quiet, and sits back and watches and magic happens. Digital just doesn't have that vibe and, what's more, never will, no matter how good the technology gets. I'm all for IMAX film though if it helps the 'real film industry' (or is it the 'reel film industry').

I got an almost pristine-looking B&H 240 camera a few months back and it has noticeable gate weave. Otherwise, surprisingly, such a great looking image with the Wollensak lens I used on it. Absolutely crystal clear and sharp as a tack despite some weaving. If I can figure out how to steady the image that would be great. I used DR to steady up the image in post. Different camera of course but I wonder if the B&H 16mm cameras that were made for the amateur home movie market have less stable registration generally than similar cameras in that class. I won't be getting any more 240s any time soon.

Nikon acquires Red. Yawn. Sign of the times. Red's day has come and gone.

Please document the whole process you use Robert, in notes and video if you can, to pass on this knowledge to a new generation when it comes time for you to retire. It probably takes decades to acquire such knowledge from one's own experimentation and experience. It's better for a young person to learn from someone who's already trodden that path. I do as much as I can to hand on my hard won knowledge.

Yes, a beautiful print. A lot of people have been saying for a long time that art's not important, that audiences don't care about 'art'. I think that that attitude couldn't be more wrong. Many have even forgotten what the meaning of the word 'art' is. If you go to the cinema and you're not getting, along with the story, some kind of artistic experience, you're being short changed. A good 35mm print goes a long way in creating a very satisfying cinema experience.