Jon O'Brien

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.

I went and saw a 35mm print projected at Gallery of Modern Art in Brisbane on Saturday. We saw 'The Red Shoes'. It was a fantastic and very entertaining experience. The cinema was nearly full, with many young people. I think the traditional cinemas and Hollywood might be dying. Very exciting to see so many young people so keen to see real film projected in a cinema, and a truly great old film that was worth seeing instead of being modern garbage. Shoot film. And project film!! I'm not afraid to say that so much of Hollywood's output now is total garbage and so is a lot of Netflix, streaming, etc.

Definition is one thing. But another aspect worth mentioning is that a lot of digital 'fanpeople' remind me of an old guy standing in an art show, looking at two paintings side by side. He doesn't like the painting on the left. He thinks it's low quality. He likes the uninspiring but superficially impressive work to its right, that looks exactly like ten thousand other paintings you always see at such exhibitions. But the painting on the left is art. He walks up closely to both the paintings, less than two feet away from them, and points from one to the other, looking back at his wife with an intensity of conviction. He points to the painting on the right. "Look at that artisty -- the painter has painted every single leaf accurately. This painting on the left has none of that fine control of the brush!! He's an amateur!" He steps back, looks again at both paintings to compare them one last time, and he and his wife walk off. But an observer, quietly standing nearby and having overheard the conversation, sees things very differently. To him, the painting on the right is commercial looking, run of the mill muck, churned out easily in a tired, tried and true production style, and the other is real art -- something that stands out, and will always stand out. To each his own.

The world desperately needs new and up and coming motion picture film camera repair technicians.

How strange, because it's otherwise great looking footage. I'm sort of getting the feeling it's not the lighting, but I could be wrong. It couldn't possibly be a problem with the light source in the scanner?

The people carrying the guns around look like total wankers. A few months mandatory training with real guns at a real gun range should be required of all film actors. This is ridiculous. And in Australia usually the gun is carried muzzle up, not down. With action open at all times when not about to actually discharge the firearm. Amateurs!! Extreeemely dangerous.

Looks like a senior management issue, on set, to me. Who hired this poor girl? She could well be being set up as the scapegoat. The whole show looks really low tone and amateurish. Are these the world's pros????

I've been thinking that this has got to occur sometime soon in the digital cinema camera market. Just how much better can these cameras get? After the Arri Alexa 35 and so on ... they can maybe increase the definition a bit more but, really, to what point? Why bother? People spend a lot of money in post making the footage from these cameras have more of a film look because the digital imagery produced by them is too perfect. A bit of imperfection is the way to go, and now has to be added back in, after shooting. The funny thing about the digital revolution is that an unexpected or unintended side effect has occurred as the technology has improved. Film scanning has improved to the point where shooting on film makes more and more sense because you automatically get a great looking image without having to fiddle around with it in post. You don't need to do anything to it to make it look great and filmic. Shooting on film gets rid of the electronic look that a lot of digitally shot footage inherently has. For big budget movies film is affordable too. Shooting on film gives feature movies an inherent interest because film is the traditional medium for narrative movies. I've seen people scoff at the suggestion but I feel that really Australia needs to get back to film cinematography for at least some of our feature production shot in this country. That is if we truly want to be competitive. A fully digital infrastructure is still second rate on the world stage. That hasn't changed.

A very exciting project and one I want to get around doing soon, too, on 16mm or S16. When it's art, or something traditional, hand made, hand painted, etc, that kind of thing, film is a wonderful medium that complements the subject. Yes, shooting digitally can be made to look beautiful too, but film has the natural edge and inclination towards giving the right artistic or traditional vibe to a project. So for this sort of short film I think real film is perfect, especially 16mm where you can see the grain but there's still enough quality in the image to make it look classy too. I want to do the same thing but with a violin luthier/maker. I'm thinking of turning it into a short drama work, writing the script for it. it would need minimal acting skills, or just 'being oneself' and no acting at all. There's something fascinating about the work of the luthier, the shop, the natural materials, the music. Fantastic project to work on.

Shot on 35 mm .... Wow. For a movie like this, this is a very important element. Anyone with even an ounce of art in them is drawn to a feature movie shot on film. There's something about film. There just is ... you can't get around that fact. Film is still king. For some movies, digital kills it. I could hardly sit through The Hobbit. I couldn't stand the look of it.

Yes, certainly well deserved.

An interesting development if that occurs. Imagine the world without RED cameras, or at least without the word 'RED' on them. Speaking of the Canon C300 III, this camera seems to be very impressive, with a dual gain sensor somewhat similar to the Arri Alexa. Yes, Nikon might be seeking to produce something comparable to the C300.

My policy is to get everything looking as good as possible in camera. So the footage you get back needs only minimal work in post. The Davinci relight tool is incredibly useful for situations where you just couldn't get the lighting good enough for some reason (maybe you had only one small light with you on the day and you really needed an extra light/s). I had a very slow start teaching myself Davinci Resolve. For the first months I didn't get very far at all but I persevered. Now I'm comfortable with it and am getting better all the time. I'd agree with that advice that cinematographers should know how to use Davinci Resolve. It is an incredible filmmaking tool.

Bravo! Well done. I already have one, an old rewind assembly that a friend gave me. He used to be a cinema projectionist. I haven't used it yet. Great idea to save money. Each dollar saved is a dollar earned.

There's more than a bit of a nod to David Lynch's Eraserhead (1977). I probably won't see it as it's not my sort of film but always good to hear about features shot on an SR3 and Tri-X.