Jon O'Brien

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.

1 hour ago, Will Montgomery said:

Scoopics are usually less noisy than a Bolex and they are the fastest loading cameras around...but they do make some noise and some are louder than others. What about an A-minima?

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.

6 hours ago, Robert Houllahan said:

I would suggest just shooting with a Bolex it is not that loud and in general I have found that people actually love the sound of it.

 

YMMV

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!

I don't care for the blockbusters that are coming out. But the film/digital discussion just goes around and around in circles, so not much point going on about it.

Do what you want in film/video, if you can. When I film things myself and see the results on a computer screen, both digital and film, I much, much prefer the look of the film images. This is my own artistic taste and preference for a video 'look' and I can't explain or account for the taste or preference of others. Same as when I go to an art gallery - some works (and the media from which they are created) there appeal to me much more than the others. It can't really be explained. Nothing regarding the meaning and personal value in art can really be explained accurately in words, I find. People are motivated to use certain media, if they can.That's about all you can say. If you are motivated to shoot real film and it has a lot of value for you, and looks absolutely great to you, then do your best to shoot with it. I got into digital because film really isn't practical anymore for a lot of applications. It's the 'film' medium of today but it lacks some charm and magic - but a lot of people don't seem to care too much about charm and magic. They just want Marvel movies and comic book explosions and fights, or whatever - and that's okay. In the end it's all entertainment.

Do what you can, and what you want to do. And that's it.

6 hours ago, Niels kakelveld said:

When it comes to colour film with the quality and consistent of Vision3 I am afraid it is really going to be: Use it or lose it ...

Doing my level best to do this. Was all set to shoot on 16mm last weekend to film an old historic steam train but the train broke down so no footage yet. Will try again when it's repaired. Couldn't help but see the parallels - old things can be charming and beautiful but are not always as trouble free as 'modern' things. Not all that long ago I was shooting on 16mm (on an old Bolex) and the film came off the take up reel on the 100' daylight reel so a lot of the film was spoiled. I will keep shooting film as long as I can though. It's worth it.

40 minutes ago, Giray Izcan said:

... Nowadays shooting on film is more of a vanity affair and prestige thing as opposed to then - everything had to be shot on film...

It wasn't until digital video technology was developed to such an extremely high level as it is today that I truly understood just how good real film is in comparison.

The film stock looks very good to me. There's just a bit of imperfection but not too bad at all.

The look kind of reminds of a very grainy, bleak looking old projection print of some old movie. But, it's interesting. Would work where you want a very obvious film look. Maybe over time they can improve this.

It's a tragic situation. Never, never, ever, point a gun at anyone. Let alone do that and maybe pull the trigger as a joke (he said he didn't pull the trigger apparently). People who use real guns for their work are taught this over and over again. Or .... they should be. That's what was always traditionally taught. Those things are dangerous.

Sounds feasible to me but there's the very thin 'WD-40'-type oil designed as a moisture inhibitor that comes in a pressure pack that I'd be wary of putting anywhere on a lens - even a drop or two from a syringe. It migrates extremely easily and might find its way to the glass. I think I'd avoid that type of gun oil.

I'm thinking about the Flowtech with Aktiv head for use with an Arri SR and also with Canon EOS cameras (much lighter of course). The expected weight range would be approximately 3 to 10 kg. So I'd be looking at the 100mm bowl. At about twice the price of an equivalent Miller the Sachtler Flowtech with Aktiv10 head would want to, be so much better and quicker to use. Can anyone else chime in with advice about the relative merits of the new Sachtler system, with the 100mm bowl? Even for single operators the lower-priced Miller wouldn't be all that much slower to use, surely? ... or would it? I don't envisage needing to set up a tripod extremely quickly. In other words I'm not likely to be shooting news or wildlife documentary etc. And if you are shooting news you would just use a shoulder rig anyway for quickly-needed shots. So is the Flowtech and Aktiv system really worth the extra cost, over the Miller?

I'd be inclined to cut them a little slack too. Must be a difficult thing to do what they are trying to achieve.

I know we're talking color negative here but I used to shoot on Agfachrome Super 8 when I was a teenager and man that had a lovely look. Very different to Kodachrome. The Agfachrome really brought out the rich reds in the basalt soils where I was living and rich greens in the foliage. A grainier image but with a kind of 'fat' look if I can put it that way. It was a sort of warm and rich image that I liked.

Movies and tv shows shot on Agfa stock looked great too. Is Orwo film in any way likely to be similar to the old Agfa film?

2 hours ago, Uli Meyer said:

Not cropped in but shot N35 2perf.

Beautiful. The light is gorgeous. I think my ideal film format is 2Perf. I would happily specialise in it. Pity that sync-sound cameras in 2Perf are not easy to come by.

On 12/17/2022 at 6:50 PM, Paul-Anthony said:

There is also a big difference between independent films and Hollywood films shooting 35. When you go around the world in film festivals and see independent features shot in 35mm, they just pop out from all the other films shot in digital. The skintones, the highlights, the colors, the vibration in the image, when its not completely erased in post-production, nothing else looks like this, and the big screen reveals all the beauty and unicity of modern 35mm.

Yes as Paul-Anthony says Hollywood-style big-budget 35mm films these days do tend to have a clinical look almost indistinguishable from digital but there must be ways to grunge-up 35mm a bit. What about cropping in a bit (and shooting with this in mind) to effectively make the frame size a bit smaller - but still bigger than Super 16 which needs the most expensive lenses to look truly good on the big screen. Also maximising grain by film stock selection, pushing stops etc. 35mm is a format for the big screen that simply "works well." Super 16 is fine for a real-film look on smaller screens but sometimes I feel it can look a bit underwhelming for a major feature movie. It did look good in my opinion though when it was used for some scenes in 'First Man' (2018). I would like to have seen 'Let the Corpses Tan' (2017) on the big screen. I wonder what that looked like in the cinema.

Wow! Looks amazing. All the best with this project. I once tried to save two enormous, beautifully made cinema projectors in excellent condition from the scrapheap but wasn't able to take on the project. Unlike you I'm not so good at engineering projects and tinkering.

It's sort of heart-warming seeing the efforts people are going to to save celluloid motion picture filmmaking and processing in Australia.

Obviously you would need to test to see how the 16mm anamorphic looks on a big screen but I've heard it said that 16mm anamorphic can look a bit soft unless the absolutely sharpest and best lenses are used such as the Hawks. 2-perf seems a more practical choice to me. The other possibility is Super 16 spherical, cropped top and bottom if you want a wider aspect ratio. That comes out looking pretty good on a big screen though not super sharp. It's grainy but some people like that look. I think if I was shooting a picture on 16mm I'd be inclined to avoid anamorphic unless I had the use of the best possible lenses.

As the technology gets glitzier and more amazing the film industry shouldn't get ruffled by it. In fact, it might be wise to start walking in the opposite direction. You might get more notice. Don't bother trying to turn cinema into some kind of gaming/cinema/VR blend. It won't work. Gamers will always prefer their games and their VR; and you will lose audiences for traditional cinema. Cinema is what it is. A lot of people think it is evolving. It's not. It will die away if it does that. Because it won't be cinema anymore.

I also feel a lot of people are bored with what Hollywood churns out now.

As someone above mentioned, what's happening is the same thing that happened to music hall, orchestras and stage plays. They're still around, and in certain circles they can still be a big deal, but they don't enjoy quite their former importance. In Australia at least a lot of young people are still very much into cinema. I don't think the future is IMAX. I think the future of cinema is garden variety, old-style smallish/average size-screen movies on DCP or if you're lucky 35 or occasionally 70 mm prints. All the other alternatives are too expensive. If you can't see a movie for about 15 bucks or whatever it's not going to work financially. Not enough people are going to care about a huge screen and expensive tickets. Story will continue to sell movies ... not whopping great big screens. I don't care for IMAX myself. I like a normal, average size screen, just the normal cinema experience, nothing flash, and a good story/good movie. I do happen to like things like the screen curtain rolling back, and a pianist or organist playing at the start, and things like that. I like the traditional cinema experience. And you know what, I think a lot of other people do too.