Jon O'Brien

But I think that will probably be unneccesary. Productions, shot on film, projected digitally, maybe with a little note added towards the end of the credits: "No computer-generated imagery, beyond the scanning of the original camera film negative, was used in the production of this movie," or similar, would do the trick. A similar note on the posters/digital ads?

Thank you Daniel, I hadn't thought of that. I've since found that good, old-fashioned elbow grease, a little extra, is good too.

It will affect things like VFX and concept art in a big way. But really the whole film industry thing is heading down the gurgler with these massive VFX heavy films anyway in my opinion. Sure, lots of people still love those kinds of movies but I think the writing is on the wall. Apart from the latest Indiana Jones movie I don't go to see those types of films. It's like looking at computer generated pap for an hour and a half or 2 hours. No thanks. I want to see films made by filmmakers, not by screen sitters/graphics designers. I was at Village Roadshow studios Gold Coast, the other day, and man that place was a hive of activity. The extras carpark was huge and it was totally full. Cars and people everywhere! A massive amount of effort and energy there, making movies. It looks like, so far, real moviemaking with real actors and extras is very much still with us. In the circles I move in, no one cares about AI in the creative arts. People are happily making films and making music, the same as they always did. Even with digital cinematography and all that, creative types are still making films and shows the traditional way. Musicians are still training with physical, real instruments. People who like cheap junk are going to love the next few years, and there you go. You can't change such people. They like cheap junk. They seek it out. Real stuff looks boring to them. You were never going to interest such people in real films and real music anyway. They are lost to art, for the rest of their lives, unless they have some kind of artistic awakening but don't wait for that to happen. They are addicted to junk. As time goes by people of taste will keep seeking out real art made by real people. It is so amazingly obvious to see and hear the difference between AI generated stuff and real material made by real people. Even on YT with the sort of news and current affairs type videos it is so obvious to pick the fake ones. And you can read down in the comments that everyone else can tell the content is fake too. It's like anything else. Everything has a creative vibe to it. People with taste will still seek out quality. And more so. Real filmmaking and real music making will continue. The other half will be happy with their artificial cheese twisties. They always were ... no one can help that type except themselves and for many it is too late I suspect. The number of those seeking true art and culture is growing. Where I live I can see it. The one way to ensure a completely human-made, handmade (as it were) creative process in filmmaking is to go back to a totally photochemical work flow. Movies made this human-made way, totally without digital to completely dismiss the possibility of any artificial computer based input, could be marketed with a simple logo or slogan. Like the way movies shot on film now often have something like "Shot on Kodak film" put on the movie posters.

Thanks for your help Dom. The viewfinder image is centered and complete. I will see if I can get a good shot of the front of the prism. Maybe I can get a shot of the viewfinder image too. Also I will shoot a part of a roll with the camera, inducing the effect while I film, and see if anything records on the film itself. It might take a while. It seems to me that the horizontal mark along the bottom part of the front of the prism is likely the culprit, as if the light is reflecting off there. My best guess is some kind of separation of a coating that is on the front of the prism. I came to this conclusion because it looks like it's on the front surface, plus I was able to polish off part of the mark, but not all of it. Bottom part of front of prism, and top part of viewfinder image, in approximately same part of frame, suggests they are related. However ... how would the edge of the lens image circle get reflected off the front of the prism? The image circle would extend well beyond the edges of the prism. It's a mystery.

I've got some strange reflection I can't account for happening in the viewfinder of a Bolex Rex 5. I've been so absorbed in digital cinematography and other things that I haven't filmed with a reflex Bolex for a while. What happens is that a thin reflection, about 1/10 height of the viewfinder and almost the full width of the frame, appears towards the top of the viewfinder image when filming at certain angles in brighter light. It is actually a reflection of the top edge of the lens image circle. It appears as a dimmer but still very noticeable image on the ground glass surface of the reflex prism. If you move the camera you can see it is the edge of the image circle. One side of the reflection is curved as you would expect. The reflection only appears when the light entering the lens is at a certain angle, but it appears often. It happens with both lenses currently fitted to the camera: 26mm and 16mm RX Switars. It can be eliminated with my hand being lowered until it is almost visible in the top of frame. I could use a matte box top flag to hide the reflection but I don't currently have a matte box that fits. Is this reflection likely to also appear on the film? I suspect not as I've never noticed a problem with the footage from this camera in the past. But I don't want to risk wasting some footage. Also, when I look directly at the prism, with the lenses moved aside, I can see a dull brownish/grey horizontal line, about 1 or 2mm high, towards the bottom edge of the prism. It almost seems like glue separation or something similar. It seems to be on the front of the prism or just beneath. Do the prisms have a thin coating at the front surface, that can start to discolour with age? I tried polishing the mark off with lens cleaner and lens tissue. It's smaller and less noticeable now but still there. Any ideas? Thanks!

Looks great. I will have to watch the rest of it, only seen about half. Very in-depth and a lot of very interesting info.

Yet to do the test shots but looks like it's definitely going to be shoulder rig. I bought the SmallRig basic shoulder kit which was a great price. After doing a bit of research I found out that IS can be a problem with filming people up close with handheld. The problem only manifests in some shots, but you never know when and can get a situation where the camera attempts to keep the person still within the frame, resulting in a weird look where the background moves around but not the subject. No thanks. I will just do handheld (no IS) and shoulder mount.

Well, I'm just 'thinking aloud' at this stage. What about a low-price shoulder rig, like the one I link to above, and have the C300 mounted forward of my shoulder, and basically handheld but kind of 'braced' on the shoulder, with a heavy weight added to the rig over the shoulder pad, to hold it down. Trying to avoid some kind of expensive solution here.

Monopod could work. Not fond of that idea though. Doesn't look 'ENG' enough? Also, clunky when moving the camera forward or back. The other option is use a shoulder outfit but place the camera forward of the shoulder. The weight of the camera and lens would then be supported more by the hand or hands on the 'handle bars', but at least the EVF, camera controls and lens focus will be easier to reach. It's not a hugely heavy camera setup. I will just be focusing using the lens barrel itself. Manual focus only.

I can use a Zhiyun gimbal but that's going to be massively heavy, plus a big drain on the batteries. So not really an option. What about this little, low-priced shoulder rig? Looks like it might be difficult to reach the controls on the camera though: https://www.digidirect.com.au/smallrig-basic-shoulder-rig-kit?gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=17347891661&gbraid=0AAAAADlehXKINNAoeXELz5Ay0xHlCWQhf&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIncv-m5yfjQMVwRmDAx2A2QfVEAQYASABEgI1e_D_BwE Hmm ... don't think that will work. The side EVF is going to have to be way out the front, on some kind of extension. Looks like I'm going to have to work out a handheld solution for this camera.

I've got a paid filming job coming up, for an outdoor event where there's going to be a lot of people milling around that will be listening to performances/eating food from stalls. We will be filming some brief interviews on the fly and just getting shots of people enjoying the day. There will be an interviewer holding a mic most likely. I do have an on-camera Deity shotgun mic but I think the handheld mic will be best. The director, interviewer and myself are yet to finalise how we're going to film it at a meeting coming up but I want to have a fair idea of the camera requirements before the meeting. I will be using a Canon C300 Mark III with a 24-105mm f/4 EF Canon lens. It has in-lens Image Stabilization, plus in-camera Image Stabilization as well. I don't normally use either of these IS functions so far. I've usually used the camera on a fluid head tripod or just natural handheld (no IS turned on)(sometimes filming in slow-mo). I like to use an EVF. I normally use the rear-mounted EVF on the C300, but can use the side-mounted larger EVF for the C300 if needed (if I use a shoulder rig I will probably need to use the side EVF). The one time I tried IS on the C300 III was for an interior shoot and in one shot, I got a weird 'jelly' image effect where a vase on a table in MCU seemed to float in space unnaturally. I don't want that look. Putting the camera on the tripod and moving it around is likely to be difficult as I've been told the crowd is often shoulder to shoulder there's so many people there. So, sounds more like a shoulder rig job. Only thing is I very rarely so far have done filming with a shoulder rig (funnily enough, I have done it with an Arri SR film camera, but not with digital. The SR is a natural for shoulder use as the balance and VF placement works well). However, the C300 isn't easy to put on a shoulder rig as it's a very short camera and lens setup. So, my question is, can anyone advise if I can just get by with a natural, handheld camera? This is the way I so far prefer to film if I've got the camera off the tripod. Put the lens on its widest setting and hold it steady, bracing it maybe? Of course, I will do tests but am wondering if I need to get or hire a shoulder rig. Can you successfully use in-camera/in-lens Image Stabilisation for handheld camera for such run-n-gun interview filming? Is the 'jelly' effect likely to be a problem if I use IS? If a shoulder rig is the way to go, what is a good shoulder rig outfit for shorter camera/lens setups? I don't want to use an Easyrig or something similar. Would look too comical for the fairly low-key event we will be filming at. Any thoughts? Thanks.

Sorry for taking this thread off-topic, Florian. I promise, my last post on this, talking about the film/digital thing. Just wanted to write one last thing, in order to encourage some who've always shot digital in the past who might feel daunted at the idea of using film for a short film project. If you do extensive tests beforehand, with precisely the same camera, lens or lenses (maybe just use a single lens, if you can, but do many tests with it), and same filmstock (from the same batch, even?), and if you change nothing, and maybe even keep the lens on the camera as much as possible between shoot days except to check the gate or whatever, experience teaches us that, in most cases, everything will turn out fine with that camera and the film you load into it if you are careful with everything that needs to be done. Yes, problems can still happen, when loading film, or whatever. But with a dependable Arri or similar, and even a Bolex, chances of something going wrong aren't high unless it's a problem with the processing but I've never, so far, experienced a problem with the processing. Just a quick note if filming with a Bolex. Make sure if using 100' spools (in fact you can use these in an Arri SR, too) that your take-up spool is not bent or misshapen in any way. As Simon once advised me, here at Cinematography.com, make sure to roll your empty take-up spool, before using it, along a flat table top surface. Make sure it rolls straight, and watch it as it rolls. Make sure the two sides of the spool remain perfectly parallel with each other. Because I once lost a roll of film because it became unspooled inside the film compartment because the take-up reel wouldn't smoothly accept the film. I lost that whole 100' of footage.

That's a tough experience!! I feel for you. That would be horrid to get back so many rolls like that. It's easy to be wise in hindsight but, for the sort of films I want to make, I will try to film not too many 400' rolls going off to the developer at any one time before shooting the next roll. Yes it's so easy to miss problems when looking at a ground glass. If I'm getting actors to travel to a rural location (like I want to film for my first film set in the 1930s) which could be an hour or more from home, just how many weekends can I expect them to make the trip out there so I can get enough footage? Not an easy situation, for sure. At least, it cuts down filming time each day. So, no long days. If there's a will there's a way. You reminded me of something from years ago, about the rain effect you got back. When 'Return of the Jedi' was first released in Brisbane, in 1983, the 35mm film print at the Hoyts cinema had a weird 'rain effect' look on the print in one shot on the first reel. It was very noticeable (to me, anyway). When Darth Vader strides down the boarding ramp of the Imperial Shuttle, at the start of the picture, it looked like it was raining inside the docking bay. Someone must have set the sprinkler system off. One of the Stormtroopers sneaking a quick smoke behind one of the storage boxes, maybe. So, even the biggest Hollywood productions sometimes couldn't guarantee the look in every single shot of some of their prints, at least. That's film, folks. But, at the cinema, film is more exciting. Digital is predictable but there's always a trade off for that. We know what that is. It starts with the letter B.

I only shoot on film for my own short film projects. Tried for years to create some curiosity about what I offer but crickets so far. I'm thinking of advertising in a local magazine. Part of my situation is that I don't particularly want to do weddings and in my area that's the sort of go-to bread and butter work for videographers. I've done one wedding and enjoyed it but there was a near disaster with the camera (actually with the cartridge) but all went well nevertheless. Happy I suppose to do the odd wedding here and there if it's filmed outdoors on a sunny day, as the wedding I filmed was. But really I was hoping to film other people's narrative short films but the lack of interest is astonishing in my area. No one wants to risk losing a bit of money if film doesn't turn out for them. Sheesh. I actually find it lazy. It wasn't meant to be that way. You're supposed to take risks in the creative arts. And I notice the people with cameras have spent a lot of money on them. It's not as if they can't afford to film one short film on film. I even offered to do filming for free. Perhaps it's difficult to get noticed in videography since everyone with a tiny Sony on the end of a motorized stick is a videographer now. Hence why I'm thinking of the ad in the magazine. For absolutely everything else I shoot digital. Concert filming, musician's gigs, music videos B roll, and now training videos for a local organisation and filming of events like Multicultural days etc. I'm starting to get paid for my videos. Yay. I like digital for what it is. Very clean, very straightforward and quick. Easy sync sound. But for short films of the sort I want to make, many with a kind of 'morality tale' or message of hope worked into the story, and done within a 'period era' genre, I want to shoot on film. Can be Super 8, 16mm, or 2-perf. I literally have to do every single thing myself. I will get there if I keep at it but it's a slow process 🙂 You've really got to love what you do.

Sure, I know you feel this way Tyler, and that this is what you want to do. For myself I remain unconvinced about digital for narrative, for what I want to do. I can always tell if I'm watching a digitally shot show when at the cinema and when watching something on TV. I can always tell when it's real film. Perhaps many others can see the difference too. But really I don't care. I love working with an actual photographic negative and that's just me. At the moment I'm working on filming a series of short films, and I'm still at the prep stage and writing the first script ... I haven't filmed a feature yet. But if I did film a feature it would be on film too. Again, that's just me. I'm a determined person and I'm absolutely determined to shoot film only. Because, for me (even if it was nobody else), film looks better on the big screen and it has a better onscreen vibe or feel that is impossible to replicate on digital no matter what high powered people in the industry may say to the contrary. I don't name drop and conversely i don't care who they are. To me, film is 100% better than digital for the sort of narrative stories I want to tell. Sure, 35mm is great. 16mm too. I go my own way. 🙂

Only thing with S16 for features is it's more difficult at times to get a shallower DOF.

I agree Giray. For a theatrical release shot on film and projected digitally, shoot on 16mm where you want to make it obvious that it's film. For such a movie shot on 16mm I feel that the one thing needed to be avoided is a too soft look -- as I've seen at the cinema a few times with movies shot on 16mm. I'd shoot S16, with the sharpest spherical lenses I can find (film lots of tests) -- and film on 7213. For wide vista shots E.g. for an 'outback' or outdoors-themed type movie or so on maybe shoot these wide landscape shots on 35mm, E.g. 2-perf. Obviously if going a completely photochemical workflow all the way to projection then I'd shoot traditional 35mm 4-perf or 65mm.

With the black leather on the external surface of some cameras, E.g. a Bolex, and with the black speckle finish on others, occasionally one comes across a camera that has had some spots of mildew on it for a time, perhaps a year or two. It's easy to wipe off the mildew/mould, and even to wipe it vigorously with say a microfibre or cotton cloth, but sometimes a slight mark still remains on the leather or the paint finish. How can you completely get rid of the very slight stain that remains on the leather or paint where there have been small spots of mildew?

Excellent! That's great Dom, going to see Bruce. Two Melbourne cine camera legends meeting up.

Yes, I got into digital too. It's easy and quick. I will write scripts and make my own short narrative stories on film. I have digital for everything else.

And anyway, I am totally happy with film. I'm just going to keep using it.

A great little short film, beautifully done. Thanks for posting it, I hadn't seen it before. London sounds great! Most Aussie filmmakers I meet or talk to via email or in posts are totally sold on digital. Totally, completely, end of conversation. The very concept of analog or film seems verboten to their thinking and outlook. Hmm. Wonder what that's about. I get the distinct impression it's a solid lack of curiosity, which isn't a good thing in the arts. I did meet some dedicated film people the other day at Panavision, for a film loading workshop, but man, that was the first and maybe last time. The general thinking was one of nostalgia, and 'wouldn't it be nice, but it ain't gonna happen.' Those taking the workshop were great but the mood was "well, back in the day ..." Everyone else I meet is totally non compos mentis when it comes to film. I don't get it because they often use expensive digital gear. It's not as if it's about the cost. And in a lot of cases digital certainly doesn't look much to write home about. And there's something inherently unfascinating about a totally digital workflow.

Excellent advice, thank you Tyler. I can tell from what you write and the way you write it that you're sincere and that you've walked the creative path, as any artist must. My personal experience of the world is something special I indeed have. I've done a lot of jobs so far in my time and experienced a lot of unique and interesting adventures in 'the outback' as that's what I used to do. I've met lots of wonderful and wild and woolly characters. I have reams of good stories there. That's why I'm interested in Australian filmmakers getting back into the sorts of stories we use to tell back in the 70s and 80s which was our filmmaking golden period. We were fantastic at making period films, our 'Aussie westerns' if you can call them that. Films like The Man from Snowy River. I'm not into the more unhappy sorts of stories like the Kelly gang type stories. Aussies have some more great stories to tell! But I can do 'city'/'urban' and modern films too. I like those as well.

Well, yes, but yesterday I went to see The Chosen at the cinema. Of course, the story is crucial in a narrative film. The cinematography was so good (using fantastic Cooke i series lenses, both spherical and anamorphic) that it really made that picture come alive. You can tell a great story sort of well, or you can tell it incredibly well. I think filmmakers in their current rush to say that story/idea/writing is the be all and end all have lately drifted somewhat from the wisdom of knowing that how well a story is told is absolutely critical. I feel that cinematography has become somewhat devalued since the digital revolution. There's an attitude that it's more a technical thing than anything else. Good cinematography is art. I mean by that the traditional meaning of art, going back many hundreds of years, not the modern meaning of art. But sure, I get your point.

Another thing about organisations that claim to be there to help filmmakers. In some or perhaps many cases the truth is that these organisations have a core team of production people, the 'inner sanctum' group. They have one or two cinematographers that gets all or most of the work. The organisation is there to benefit this core group. They get money and status and they seek to control the local scene. Do better than them. Make better films than they do.