Jon O'Brien

What it might do is create a sense of competition. How can we make our picture warmer, more human, more interesting, more artistic, than the spirit in the machine?

When I look at articles by digital stills photographers discussing the specific look of different cameras the comparisons to me always look exactly the same. If there are differences in the look of the image in broad daylight shots they seem to me to be somewhere in the realm of 'miniscule to the point of absurdity'. The differences are nothing like the difference in look in the film world between a fast film and a slower one or a different brand eg. Kodak vs Agfa. In digital cinema cameras I can see a slight difference in look between a Sony FX9 and a Canon C300 Mark III, but I think even here the differences to anyone but the cinematographer are basically meaningless.

I see it like this. We live in an age that is sort of artistically a bit backward and unsophisticated. It came about for various reasons that aren't really important. We all know the story. Perhaps our current age could be called the Kardashian Age or something similar. Cheap and sort of basically meaningless. Funnily enough this has leached across into other disciplines, including, strangely enough, science, and I know whereof I speak as amongst other things I have a science degree and have worked shoulder to shoulder with scientists. But that's another story. And so here we are, as a civilization, a bit artistically impoverished, and, to cut to the chase, a bit ignorant of art. People now don't realize the great importance of art in civilisation. Kenneth Clark, writing and making films in the 60s, knew this great importance, however. An impoverished art is a sign of a degraded civilisation. Big deal. I guess it happens. Not many currently seem to care. Pass the tomata sauce (or the ketchup, or the hot chilli, or the fish sauce). But it's like this, for those who care and who want to know. The camera is the fundamental beginning point of a motion picture. The camera is important. It really, really matters what camera you use as everything else starts there. No camera, no movie, doesn't matter what talent you've got and what lens and what set or what location. The camera provides the raw material, which is the footage. Which is the look of the movie. Like the tone of a violin. Imagine a great violinist from ages past. They really cared what violin they had. They lost sleep over the toils of finding a good violin that they would spend the rest of their lives with. Because the tone mattered. That was their raw material. Doesn't matter how talented: if no good violin, no good violin music. No audience. They all go away if it doesn't sound good. It's the same with cinema. Money guys, if you are reading this, make your movies look amazing and lots will start to flow from that. The good effects will seap outwards, affecting positively the rest of the production. The footage is your raw material. Build on that firm and sound foundation. Don't go for cheap and easy. That will result in a movie that looks cheap and lazy. And who wants to see a movie like that? Not me.

Cinemas finished? Not where I live. Not the last time I looked anyway. The UK and places in Europe occasionally knock out a film worth seeing. Haven't seen a US film I liked for ages.

Yes the money side is a huge factor. Lots of flops these days with some pretty poorly made big budget movies in cinemas. Would be good to get some good returns for big budget movies. Nothing will change until producers see the light. Cinematographers might proclaim what's a good way to operate until the cows come home but to no avail until the money dudes see the logic of it. Digital is cheaper. Yep there it all is in one small sentence. Cheaper in, cheaper out.

George Lucas introduced cinema to a beefed-up Sony Camcorder when he came to Australia to film the Star Wars prequels. He did Episode 1 on film though, to get the ball rolling, then when he had everyone on board and the whole shebang in action he changed over to digital for the next two episodes. Australian pros only seemed to have eyes for digital from that point onwards, and invested in it and got rid of our processing. And our industry started to decline immediately at that point. A coincidence perhaps? People say, well, what does it matter, who cares pass the tomato sauce but that's why our film industry is pretty boring these days. You tend to get what you wish for and what you work towards. If you don't care, you end up with floppy, lazy stuff.

Actually, anyone in Australia who once shot 35mm has carked it or is long retired, or one way or the other has faded completely from view. Put it this way they've all gone very, very quiet. Probably playing gigs in 50s revival bands, or something similar. Where are all Australia's old legends of the motion picture film camera? Does anyone even care in this country? .... sound of crickets chirping ... They gave up on film because they didn't like waiting for the processing. Plus it was all too hard. Digital so much easier. Looks like garbage on the big screen but that doesn't matter. "Next!" ....

Thank you Nicolas. I wonder why people now bother shooting video at 25P in 50 Hz countries such as Australia. I'm pretty sure that television here was or still is broadcast at 25 fps but I could be wrong. I suppose that if it still is, and if the footage might be destined for television, then shoot at 25P in Australia. But, otherwise, I'd be pretty much inclined to stick with 24P if I can. I suppose there could be a couple of problems here or there, depending on shooting speed and the local Hz. Like flickering lights or screens, on the footage. But the only way to know for sure is get shooting and do some tests. What a complicated world digital video is. Film is so much simpler.

Anyway, film is just more of an artistic experience when you see it in a theatre. It just IS.

I wouldn't mind betting that if Australia got back into feature film production with 35mm that we would have a healthier film industry here. I occasionally raise this topic and it sometimes gets poo-pooed by locals. Offer 100% digital-only film production facilities in your country and watch your industry decline to only getting the tackier productions. Big bucks but tacky. It's got to be said. They said film was dead. I'm sorry you Aussie pros who felt that way but you've been proven wrong.

torn sprockets I mean ...

That's true, much, much smaller market these days for film but then again things change but good things have a tendency to survive 'cause they are just so good. To look at it from another angle it's probably a blessing that we got the digital revolution. With the rate that video/moving images are now consumed/needed in the world I doubt film production could have kept pace with it all. Analogue video started taking up a lot of the workload, on tv, and then we got digital. In my opinion film is, in a way, even more loved and appreciated today because we can see just how good it is compared to digital, and the means now exist to make the viewing and distribution of it so much easier. Prints and film projectors aren't needed. Very nice to see film at its best with a film projector but film still looks excellent projected digitally. I was finally able to compare the look of film-projected 35mm in a cinema with digital projection of 35mm film last year and I think both look excellent. You can see all or most of the beautiful aspects of film with digital projection, and without torn splices, scratching of film, etc.

What tends to be the biggest problem working with 4K material .... the storage space, or the computer speed. I've got a fairly fast little machine but it's not an uber-fast editor's/colorist's special by any means. Yes, I know ... just get in there and start on it and I will figure it all out. I'm just chicken maybe, thinking what expensive computer I might need. This is a steep learning curve, but I'm getting there.

Best post I've seen in ages. Love it.

That's interesting advice, Aapo. I've seen some rather convincing videos on YouTube lately arguing for going back to 1080 for a lot of YT content, and uploading to 4K. Other people do the opposite, too, shooting at 4K and exporting at 1080. Actually my first plan with the C300III was to do exactly as you say. I was going to use Intra 410, CLog2 (YCC 422 10 bit). Perhaps I will do as you suggest, and shoot 4K. If there's a problem with file sizes I could just get extra external drive/s. They don't cost much. I would need to figure out how to edit in a smaller file size on Davinci Resolve, too.

The story so far: last year I started filming with digital cameras. Previously I had experience with Super 8 and 16mm film only, and digital was something completely new to me (other than brief videos shot on my phone). My first digital filming was with the Canon C200, shooting in MP4, and now I'm delving into the C300III. The C300III doesn't have an MP4 filming option but it does have XF-AVC 1080P intra-frame or Long GOP recording capability. I started out with the C300 shooting 4K, just brief shots (and thus smallish files), and getting into color grading for the first time, and so far my experiences have been good, but after realising how large the file sizes are going to be for serious filming, and after doing a bit more research, I've decided to go back to 1080P shooting with the C300 for the time being. At least to get started with the C300. I have some people interested in me making some video content for them soon. I live in Australia where the video standard is 25P, PAL, 50 Hz. I finished a cinematography course last year and we shot everything in the course at 25P. I asked the lecturer would we ever choose 24P for shooting and he said only for feature film production that might be destined for worldwide distribution. The main client I will hopefully be shooting some videos for soon has a youtube channel that they post all their video content to. So it seems to me that shooting in 1080 will be fine for that. There is no need for VFX or any cropping/zooming in post. Here are my questions, and if anyone can help me with answers or any other advice I'd be grateful. Of the two options for 1080P filming I can choose 160Mbps intra-frame, or 50 Mpbs Long GOP on the camera settings. What is the difference between these two video configuration settings? Can video be shot at 24P in Australia, even though the video standard here is 25P? What are the disadvantages of shooting 24P video in a country with the PAL video standard? I don't mind shooting 25P but being a bit of a traditionalist and having come from film I must admit I'd like to shoot 24 fps if at all possible. If I look up a table in the camera manual I see that if I shoot 24P video the Hz setting automatically becomes 24Hz. I don't know if this would be a problem in a 50Hz country. Keen for any advice, and your views, on these questions.

Interesting also that they just brought out the Arri35. With digital sensor technology now so advanced I wonder if the industry might be moving more towards Super35 size sensors rather than 'full frame', 65 etc. More lenses available for Super 35.

Hi Will, what in your opinion is a good model of the Scoopic to get? The MN for instance?

I've looked at other's videos online and I love the look that is possible with the C300MK3 shooting CLog2. Some commenters have said that the CLog2 footage from the C300MK3 is close to Arri Alexa quality because of the dual gain output (DGO) sensor which is similar in principle to Arri's sensor, giving a wider dynamic range. I've found that CLog2 can give a look similar to film (a look I like). More information is available in the shadow areas in CLog2 if exposed properly. Regarding the look specifically of RAW on the Canon C300MK3 here's a video that might interest you. It discusses the look of RAW vs XF-AVC. There's other good videos I've found.

Here's my "any other workflow advice." This method does do the syncing in post. I don't know about Genlock or syncing shutters yet, sorry. I too hadn't synced two cameras in a multicam setup before but recently I had to do this and I didn't have all the required gear. But the final result turned out perfectly synced. Others will hopefully chime in soon to answer your specific questions regarding timecode, and I know you said you don't want to do the syncing in post, but I will explain what I did anyway. I used a shotgun mic on the A camera (an FS7) to record the main audio and also made sure that the internal scratch audio mic on the B cam was recording and the gain was up high enough. Later in davinci resolve I used a function where davinci automatically syncs up the footage by looking at the waveforms of the separate audio tracks. No need in this situation to sync the cameras during the shoot. Even if I'd wanted to sync up the cameras during the shoot I wasn't able to as the gear wasn't set up for this by the rental house and there wasn't time to set it up. So this is a method that will work if you are in that type of situation. The footage synced up perfectly and I was able to easily cut between the cameras in the edit.

I concluded that the only practical way forward if you actually want to try to make a buck out of shooting on film is to also get into digital, to cover the areas where film can be a bit impractical in a particular situation or of course for clients who aren't interested in real film at all. It would be great if you can actually make a living (or a partial living while also doing other work) just from shooting film. I think there's someone in New York that does, shooting weddings on 16mm exclusively. Last time I looked at his website I think he was mainly using Scoopics. Great camera, wouldn't mind one. Noisy though.

If they've specifically asked for film they probably do love the sound. I think though that many potential client's expectations of film and film cameras is perhaps unrealistically high. After all nearly everyone if they have a tiny bit of skill can film excellent video, with audio, on their phones - smooth, colorful, vibrant, high definition, and of course without camera noise. I've found people can sometimes look a little surprised when you explain to them patiently that the camera need expensive motion smoothing equipment to match the look of ultra-smooth digitally stabilized phone footage, and that the footage needs to be color graded after scanning, and that the cameras can be noisy especially indoors, etc etc., and that the cameras can be very heavy, and require fluid head tripods, etc. The numbers of potential clients that understand real film and how it is shot seem to be a bit thin on the ground sometimes.

If shooting on digital as some have suggested you could always sort of 'cheat' a little, if mixing the footage with real film, by using film emulation software in post on the digital. Add heaps of grain and a bit of gate weave. I'm all for it, myself.

There are ways to make your life easier filming weddings, without spending too much money. You probably know this, but you can also get an electric motor that will fit on the side of a Bolex Rex 5 and similar models. The camera will still be loud but you can film at a moment's notice (if you don't need to load film at that moment!).

Shooting weddings on 16mm is difficult no matter what you do. The camera is either very heavy or it's noisy. Super 8 is slightly quiter and much faster to load. If I was shooting a lot of weddings on film I think I'd probably get a good Super 8 camera, such as from Pro8mm or some other reputable camera repair/rebuilding business, or a few cheaper cameras as back up. If filming with something like a Bolex Rex-5 you will have to point out to the couple that your camera makes a fairly loud whirring sound indoors. For shooting weddings with a lighter 16mm camera I had the idea of filming only the preparations, the arrival, and just after the ceremony. The ceremony itself if indoors could be shot on digital if you don't have a quiet running camera - and the reception too, with perhaps the dance shot on film (with lights) if desired. There will be music playing during the dance so camera noise shouldn't be a problem. If you are determined to shoot 16mm how about a Bolex EL or EBM. They are fairly noisy but you don't have to keep winding them. You can get 400' mags for them but you also need a small motor on the magazine. You could try Du-All in the US. All the best with your filming!