Jon O'Brien

Being initially rejected is fairly common. I always find it interesting how many famous or influential creative people (not just in cinematography) got their start. A lot of them knew rejection early on (sometimes lots of it) and their stories are inspiring and uplifting. Just because someone gets rejected doesn't mean they will rise to the top, far from it, but it's still encouraging that many talented people suffered the same thing and didn't quit. To take a famous example: around about the early 1900s the young violinist Fritz Kreisler couldn't get a job playing violin in a professional orchestra. The concertmaster wrote on his audition report that basically he wasn't good enough a player. So not long after that Kreisler ended up being the world's most famous classical violinist. A rare case, sure, but fun to read about, and ponder. Must have been funny going back to that orchestra and playing as the soloist with them. I guess the main message is keep on going, if you really want to do something enough.

If what you're saying is true, then most pros would probably prefer to have authentic old Super 8 cameras from the 70s and 80s, shaky picture and all. Buy a stack of them on ebay, throw out the ones that give you problems, and go to gigs with 4 or more cheap cameras stuffed into a bag. If one jams while filming, or just suddenly decides not to start running, grab the cartridge out and put it into the next camera you grab from the bag. The frame line would vary but that can be fixed in post. That strategy might work for the next couple of decades, until the supply of Super 8 cameras dwindles. By then a lot of the nylon gears and motors/wiring will have given out. The other big appeal of Super 8 is the extremely quick change over of the film. I forgot to mention that above, comparing it to 16mm.

Are there really all that many professionals shooting on Super 8? I can't help thinking that in nearly all cases 16mm can do everything Super 8 can do (you can grain it up, crop in closer etc) and also easily do a lot more that Super 8 can't. About the only thing Super 8 has that 16mm doesn't is the jittery Super 8 jump - which the new camera wouldn't have had. With Super 8 I feel that the existing cameras are relatively low-cost, if you can get ones that are reliable, and so if you're fine with the jitter and you want to shoot Super 8 then maybe just have an extra back up camera or cameras with you. But even so, I wish they'd done ahead with the Gentoo. It really did look fantastic.

With some small attention to detail it could be made to appeal to hipsters. There's a minimalist trend and some contemporary cinema cameras look a bit like bricks. Doesn't have to have the classic curvy lines of an older Arri to appeal to new buyers, except maybe the film magazine.

You are quibbling and making assumptions. It's none of your business. You only need to offer support for someone making new film cameras. It's really simple.

I said "profitably enough." Of course they have passion.

Well, I will just repeat some of what I said above: "just as far as I see it there'd be more money to make out of Super 16 and 2 perf 35mm cameras." And to that I will add: That is, if there's any money to be made out of making film cameras. Well, it does seem to be profitable enough to make new film camera designs. Someone is doing it. Sometimes Tyler you come across as someone who in effect is saying: "Give up now, all who strive. The game is lost"

2 Perf is significantly lower in cost to run and looks just as good on the big screen as any other 35mm format. In some ways it's ideal for the big screen, because it shows a real film look better in the cinema, what with the usual contemporary digital post and projection. You can just see some subtle grain but the definition is still excellent compared to Super 16. 3 perf and 4 perf anamorphic these days, with digital everything except image acquisition, come out looking too pristine and clinical and virtually indistinguishable from something shot on a digital cinema camera. So 2-Perf has a lot going for it.

I do feel that while a fantastic-looking Super 8 camera that would have been a success as a rental camera it was a bit difficult a sell as a self-owned thing unless you do make substantial income from Super 8 'videography'. Not many do. Maybe almost no one does. Most people make a living on digital and/or on 16mm so it seems to me. Or with 35mm. If they film with Super 8 it's often just something on the side. I'm talking about making a buck from it. Hobbyists are another thing, but then again the price was very high for just a hobby. It's not my business to advise anyone on what's marketable or not but just as far as I see it there'd be more money to make out of Super 16 and 2 perf 35mm cameras.

Correct me if I'm wrong but could I be forgiven for thinking that this tends to be a certain type that I've come across? A certain age bracket. Beard. Slightly intense type. Unpleasant. Really into digital ie usually something with a bl----y skull on it or similar. Sooo professional, and real industry people ... you know?

A feature movie is an expensive thing to make. It's going to cost a lot of money no matter what you do, it goes with the territory. I still think film is a great choice. If film isn't a great choice, no one would bother putting up with the cost.

Arri LT/ST not possible to easily convert? I'm reliably informed that Panavision will happily convert their 4-perf cameras to 2-Perf but of course that's for the uber big end of town, on big productions, which is of course fine. I wonder how often Panavision cams are actually fitted out in this way for a production. One occasionally sees a major production these days shot on 2-Perf. 'First Man' made use of it for quite a bit of the film. Also 'I, Tonya'. Looked fabulous.

I emailed Tommy and asked about whether they might have any plans for producing a 2-Perf camera. He replied and said they have no plans to do so, because the market is already flooded with excellent 35mm cameras. I wonder if therefore someone somewhere might specialise in 2-Perf conversions or conversion kits for existing cameras. As always, I remain curious and keen about the potential of this format.

I like the economy of film shooters. They know deep within their souls that each frame costs money. They shoot accordingly - and are so efficient. Pretty easy on the color science side of things, too. And film look? It's already in the can.

I agree. I never manage to get over the line, into the territory of: yeah, that's for me. Maybe one day the perfect camera will appear. Until then I think I will stick with film.

There's always exceptions though and in some situations film can work out at lower cost. Just recently Jim explained in another thread how he was doing a shoot for a high-end ad and brought along his IIC 2-perf. It ended up having a great look and cost him less than hiring an Alexa. Because it was a small amount of film stock used it didn't amount to much cost to the client. It depends on the situation, but sure digital in general is going to be less money. If you've got a good film camera already and don't need to hire it can affect the economics of the situation. I'm just saying that digital isn't always in every situation going to cost less to film with. You don't need much gear to shoot with real film either. Every time I'm tempted to look into it it seems to me that high quality digital is a pretty expensive field too.

Hi there, I'm getting editing with Davinci Resolve figured out. I shot a short 16mm 'ad'/promo film for a bow tie business and edited it without problems. I exported it and sent it to the recipient via dropbox. However the owner of the bow tie business wants me to delete one short scene and make some other minor changes. I said no problem and went back to Davinci to re-edit the film. Everything I tried resulted in a mess. I tried to take up the editing again where I'd left off but couldn't get that to happen. It's as if the film is now 'set in stone' and doesn't ever want to be altered again. I could of course start all over again and edit the entire film from scratch but I don't want to do that. I just want to do some new edits. Can someone help me out by telling me what can be done in this situation? How do I take up the editing again on a film that's already been edited and exported? Thank you!

Filmmaking past a certain level is expensive no matter what you do, though obviously film as a shooting format is sunk if you can't get film stock. But in terms of expense, to get a really nice look out of digital you need something like a Sony FX9, and even though you're not buying film for it there's the massive drop in value of that camera body as newer models are released. I'd see that as a major concern. I wonder if digital gear will begin to see supply problems too. I bet not all is completely rosy in the digital world, either.

The popularity of film seems to be increasing. Not just in stills. I was in a big camera store a few days ago and overheard the staff saying that "We're going to have to do something" to respond to this strongly growing interest in film. Their whole store is chock a block with digital gear. I heard one staff member say to the others "It's about our jobs!" They said a customer comes in, enquires about a film camera or service, finds out the shop has nothing to offer, and walks out saying they will do business with such and such an online firm that does offer film equipment and services. This trend has been growing long enough for it to look like more than just a flash in the pan. People want something that their mobile phones can't already give them. I still think that film will survive. Prices and supply might be a bit worrisome for a while. Just keep shooting film if you can afford a bit every now and then.

Wow, the 2-Perf footage looks very nice indeed. Sharp, clear, with just a hint of grain. This format has got it all in my opinion. It's perfect for features and high end commercials, with economy compared to 3 and 4-Perf due to less film used, and with a wider range of lower-priced lenses available. One doesn't need anamorphic flares/stretched bokeh to have a great cinematic film look. Hope Logmar brings out a great new 2-Perf camera soon.

I'm inclined to agree with Raymond. I've had a lot of good experiences with ebay. In one transaction I was sent a really dodgy lens that was unable to be focused, despite being described as being in fine working condition. I politely contacted the seller and explained the problem and said I would send the lens back and would like my money back please. He offered to send me another example of the same lens and I agreed. It arrived and it's a really wonderful example of that lens - and it's a reasonably hard-to-get lens. I was very satisfied with how that turned out.

I agree with Dom. Congratulations to Logmar on the new designs and having the get up and go to produce new film cameras. Imagine ... someone out there not just talking about making new film cameras .... but actually doing it!! There is a lot of "O it can't be done." Bull. It can be done. Just do it. I'm very excited about this new Super 8 camera and hope to have the pleasure of shooting with it one day soon.

Very worthwhile project. I really love the look of the 35mm 🙂 What is an Arri LT 3-perf in good condition going for these days? Such a great filmmaking kit.

Hi Pav, this short film looks great to me. I'm very biased, but it's true for me that real film instantly makes a project so much more interesting right off the bat. I find the look just more artistic. Isn't that a good thing?

Aha, I see what you mean. Yes that's clear to see in the first ebay ad what the longer thread section looks like. I know what to look out for now. Thank you.