Jon O'Brien

Thanks Todd. Excellent advice. I'm a stubborn fellow and will keep trying to make a buck from filming on film. Not much of a buck. I also got into digital cinematography, having started out with the idea of specialising in real film cinematography for weddings and so on. Filming is already something I do on the side, so the money I make elsewhere is already funding my art. But, what you say about making money from vintage clip restoration does also interest me because, along the way of getting into film production, I've developed good skills in grading, editing etc. So it would be possible for me to get into vintage film clips as another side income, as you have described.

Thanks so much for your detailed and very helpful response! Yes, the life of the 'artist'/content creator: the eternal tension between what the creative person wants to make and what his or her audience wants to buy. My mother was a painter and won many awards but almost never sold a painting. I'd be glad to film vintage auto events. Or vintage anything events. Then sell the footage but looks like authentic vintage footage only is the one customers currently want. I'd like to do the filming myself of course 🙂

Thanks Todd for this excellent information. Could I ask, who would mainly be buying these vintage footage clips that you've restored? Would the clips be used in music videos for instance, or documentaries, videos on YouTube about cars? I'm genuinely curious.

... and another thing. I'm sick of videographers putting their hands up to do work for free. Videographers and filmmakers, and anyone who's shelled out hard cash to make movies of any sort: refuse, and i mean point blank refuse, to shoot any more gigs for anyone for free. Take your clips off the cheapskate clip sites, if you can. Cut the cheap bastards off from their footage. Every time you shoot something for free you're killing cinematography as a profession.

Yeah. To hell with that, as they say. The clip companies can take a flying F.

https://www.stocksy.com/ideas/film-stock-footage-why-super-8-16mm-still-rule/

All those stock video clip sites have reams of very similar shots, all in glorious 4K. Gimbal tracking shots of inner city buildings. Drone city scapes and interesting geological features. Shots of people sipping chardonnay at street bars or whatever. Drone shots and uber slow motion shots of people in the surf. Slow mo of wedding couples hand in hand. It's all the same stuff. Much of the most interesting stuff is shot with a drone. I don't know why they keep accepting clips because they already have more than enough. Almost no one is going to need Super 8 or 16mm B roll.

Yes, I've been thinking about it. I guess it makes sense that, really, who is going to want to buy any Super 8 or 16mm footage of anything? I'm not being satirical. It makes sense that content creators are going to want digital stock footage because, let's face it, a lot of video production is very shallow, glib, commercial .... call it what you want but, whatever it is, standard video production doesn't interest me in the least. I'd literally rather be a bus driver than try to make a living as a wedding videographer for instance. Or a 'corporate videographer', whatever that actually is (everyone says they do corporate videos on their websites haha). So, all these video content creators really just want shallow, commercial-looking clips to insert into their boring videos that look exactly like every other content creator's boring videos. I'm not being cynical or negative, I'm telling it like it is. But just who would actually buy Super 8 or 16mm clips? Maybe once a blue moon you might sell a very cheap clip to some teenager making a music video. But that's total peanuts. Not worth the time to upload the clip.

Perhaps some enterprising individual should start up their own film footage only stock clips site.

Hmm, sounds like they don't reeaalllly want film footage despite hinting that it's cool to shoot film clips on film. Looks like it's on to plan G (or is it plan M, somewhat down the list from plan B and plan C) for making a buck from shooting film.

Hi, I recently uploaded 10 Super 8 and 16mm film clips, all shot within the last year and graded to a high standard, to a site that seems to have a high profile and seemed to be saying that they wanted more film footage clips, but my clips were rejected. Okay, maybe not the best clips, but I thought pretty interesting especially when compared to what this site already had up for sale. Anyway, so that was my experience with that site. I'm pretty sure I can sell my clips elsewhere. Can anyone help me out with advice as to what sites are most likely to be looking for Super 8 and 16mm film clips? I find all the advice on YouTube to be aimed at digital video makers. Thanks!

Now, Tyler, could you be a bit more positive towards efforts to make a new film stock? There is a lot of financial risk involved for anyone doing this. Give this manufacturer a chance for heaven's sake and let them improve the stock and make adjustments to it. Okay, so you got poor results earlier on, with 16mm. Fair enough. We get that. But as Mark said, the stock is no doubt being improved. It's looking really, really promising so far, what I've seen on 35mm. Just dwell on this thought: it's always difficult to make something that's good. It's very easy though to find fault, and to bring down. Don't always assume things are going to turn out 'like crap'. Because if that's what you always assume that's what you'll get. Give people (and new products) a chance.

Hopefully the camera is fine but it could be that a nylon gear or the drive shaft has worn out. Does the circular take-up drive at the back of film compartment rotate when you press the run button? I had a Super 8 camera that stopped working and I opened it up and found that some internal nylon parts had degraded. You could feel it that it was warming up too on the outside if you ran it for a bit. It was just chewing gears. The Canon 814 is probably fine though as this is a very well made camera.

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.