Jon O'Brien

Apparently there might have been a slight glitch of some kind with those two cartridges. The scanner said that he's not seen this before and he's going to get in touch with someone who scans a lot of Super 8 footage in the US and ask them if they can shed some light on the situation. I'm sure Kodak will sort it out. I'm just happy to be able to get stabilized footage (and it's very easy and quick to fix). In some shots I opted for less stabilization as a totally rock solid look on Super 8 doesn't really suit it. The brief shot of the cottage is one such shot that was made absolutely still. I don't actually mind a bit of Super 8 jitter. Anyway .... That's that test done. Onward to the next project.

All fixed now. I used the stabilizer function in Davinci Resolve. I'm happy with the results. First few shots are from a Canon 310XL and the clip finishes with a Bell & Howell 670XL. It's just rough test footage to get a feel for how the cameras shoot. The footage was scanned at HD and next time I might try a 4K scan to get a slightly crisper look.

Here is my up and down footage. As you can see it's a more regular and slower movement than the usual jitter. Please bear in mind that the scanner hasn't had time to get in touch with me yet and I'm not in any way being critical of anyone. I'm just curious as to what might cause this particular vertical movement in the image of the camera gate. This particular clip was all from a Canon 310XL that I bought for a good price on Ebay. It's in very good nick and doesn't seem to have seen much action. The up and down frame movement is identical in the other three camera tests, shot on two reels of 50D. It's even on the Beaulieu 4008 which is a recently completely overhauled camera.

Wow, thanks so much Dennis for contributing to our knowledge of RX lenses! This is very helpful knowledge.

Yes I agree Aapo. I probably shouldn't have used the word suffering as the meaning of it can be misconstrued these days. I meant making art won't be easy going at all times. But people differ on what they mean by 'art' ........ I think I will gracefully depart from this thread.

I've recently done some film tests with four Super 8 cameras: Beaulieu 4008, Canon 310XL, Bell & Howell 670XL, and Canon 814 Autozoom. I used the cameras mostly locked off on a tripod for the shots as I wanted to check the cameras for registration. I'm aware that Super 8 typically has some vertical 'jitter', however the scanned footage I got back on the two reels has a consistent up and down, regular pulsing movement of the frame. It's not the normal 'Super 8 jitter' but something much more noticeable and renders the footage basically unuseable. I guess it can probably be mostly fixed in post or with rescanning but I wondered what caused it. I will try and get an example posted to show what it looks like. The sprocket holes are visible in the slightly overscanned frame and these are pretty much rock steady but you can clearly see that the image of the camera film gate itself moves up and down in a fairly steady rhythm in relation to the sprocket holes. To me logically it doesn't really seem to be a camera problem. Footage from all four cameras exhibit exactly the same type and degree of vertical movement. What causes this? I've emailed the scanning company to ask but it's the weekend and probably won't get an answer until next week. Curious to know why my footage looks the way it does. Is this typical for scanned Super 8? Compared to Tyler's footage, posted above, my footage has a slower, more uniform movement of the frame up and down.

My own dad was an engineer type. He used to say: get a good paying job and do your creative things as hobbies. I tried that for quite a few years and that did just not happen. And all around me I saw hard working people doing the same thing and a lot of them either drank too much or just had bike riding as a hobby. Riding a b-------y bike!! Ha! I'm afraid if someone wants to follow the arty creative path in life they will suffer for it. But better to suffer doing something you love than something you don't like. Just got to choose your path as best you can. If doing engineering does it for you that is wonderful as you will certainly make money.

Yes I read what I wrote and think I could have said it a better way. Engineers and project managers .... I've known quite a few over the years (most men I know are actually some variation of 'engineer'). Not having been attracted to even one iota of the subject of engineering my whole life so far I've had to face this sort of attitude that seems to say: get a real job, from the engineer types. Stop doing these creative, artistic things you always are driven to do. Just do them as hobbies in your spare time. Fair enough. I just hope that people who want to make films, or music, or paintings, or whatever, manage to find enough of that rare thing called spare time.

It's all a bit daunting, reading the posts. Just remember if it all sounds too difficult that even driving a bus or being a cab driver is no perfect life, either. Or being an engineer or a project manager .... imagine how boring that would be, for an artistic, creative person. If you're creative just accept it and deal with it. That's my advice.

"Super 8 is better than perfect" Love it. Well done Kodak!!!! You are most welcome Jurgen. I've gone back to thinking that a cinema release feature movie on Super 8 could indeed be a success. The grain and 'thickness' of the image if I can call it that (as opposed to 'thin' and 'perfect' as we see too often with digital cinematography) is just so alluring and fascinating. Such a strong medium in which a good story could be told so well by the right people.

Beautiful footage.

My thoughts exactly.

I'm not really someone to advise, but I can relate to your situation, Erik. I think what Albion said is great. Just stick with it through thick and thin -- if you really love it you will survive and get better at what you do and eventually you will get noticed. Sometimes it can help to read some of the stories of those who went on to eventual success in their chosen field. They're always interesting stories. I think it's good advice to have something else in your life that you do, that you like or love, and that you can also make money doing. It all takes time though. Some people really only start to get somewhere in life once they start to get old. It's a long road, but that's life. A tiny few get successful early. What I find most difficult about the film industry is the appalling level of information regarding jobs or potential jobs out there. I keep hearing about productions being filmed in my state but nobody and I mean nobody anywhere knows anything about it and you never can find out a thing. I've joined groups and so on and still know nothing of what's going on around the place. Yeah, maybe I'm not good enough but I still keep persisting, and keep trying to get better at what I do and this often means offering to make a video for free for someone or some group, and then when they ask me to come back I ask for a payment the next time around. Boy, though, a film life is not an easy one to find work. Except for a tiny few. That's why I also have music. The great thing about music is that it's basically free to make and you don't need anyone else to make it. You just play (or sing, or compose). You are your own boss in a way. Just got to find a way to make a living from it. It's possible. All the best!

True and apt on all counts Dom.

Hi, I can't share a still or clip as I don't have permission from the owner of the video. I had another look at it and now think I was too hard on myself. In other words it does look quite okay and I guess a lot of people would be happy with it. I've realised though that I prefer a harder light for a lot of situations giving higher contrast and more perceived sharpness. Yes, basically the lighting had the effect of an enormous frontal soft light. Plus the colour of the metal shed roof was a cream/light tan colour which gave a vaguely 'yuck' look to the light that made it more of a challenge to grade it. But if you start with something not so great in camera I've found it's difficult to turn it into something really great in the grade (well at least so far in terms of my current colour grading skills but I'm getting better at it the more I do it). It wasnt' dust from an old house rug or carpet but that's interesting you say that as that was indeed my first impression of the general look: like a hazy look. I then upped the contrast in Davinci Resolve and a few other little tricks here and there. Thanks for the advice guys.

I recently filmed two instrumentalists playing in a house, with a largish window directly behind the camera, with reflected light from a somewhat overcast sky bouncing off an outside shed, close to the window, coming straight in the window and providing the entire light for the scene. I had to shoot with this arrangement due to the position of a large, unmoveable piano. I didn't like the look I got at all for that footage. It looked muddy, un-sharp if I can call it that, soupy, and lacking in detail. What is the likely technical reason for the soupy, unsharp look that this light gave my footage? Why is this reflected light not so good? What should you do in such conditions where the quality of the natural light outside isn't good -- close the curtains and set up lights? Thank you for any advice you can give.

One of the Godfather films. 'The Godfather Part II' maybe, towards the start. One of the wives is an aspiring actress and I think a 35mm camera is brought along to film a wedding reception or something similar. That's if I recall the scene correctly. Haven't seen the movie for a long time. Also, 'The Chine Syndrome' features a young Michael Douglas as a 16mm news/documentary cameraman. The camera is stuck to his shoulder for many of his scenes I seem to recall.

Good to have you back, Dom. You seem to have been absent a little while. We need you!

A small mobile film lab for feature productions could be built if there was the will for it, and perhaps the people behind the new Aussiewood at Coffs Harbour might consider such a thing. There are mega millions planned for that production hub, if it goes ahead full steam. I think if you're going to compete with the big people overseas it would be worth considering that you should ideally be able to do whatever they can do, in terms of quality. Digital and film can happily coexist. It doesn't have to be all one to the exclusion of the other. I don't know what the numbers are but US production knocks out a few movies shot on film each year, with the great majority shot on digital but with a few film productions helping to lift the whole industry. Film does lift productions, and an industry, into a higher level, as has been said by many very experienced filmmakers over the years. Yes it probably won't happen here, it would cost a lot, but would be good if it did happen. I keep reading how the film industry here is going ahead in leaps and bounds. Sounds great to me. Okay so I'm a dreamer. https://www.forbes.com.au/covers/innovation/aussiewood-film-industry/

I get my film processed at Neglab. Werner the proprietor is great! He does a great job!! Neglab processes 16mm and 35mm motion picture negative.

Yes I remember Cop Shop. I recall that it was shot on video. There was a practice for a long time on Australian TV, just like on British TV, to do the interior scenes on tape, and exterior scenes on 16mm film. But yes Cop Shop might have been one of the first Aussie shows that was all tape. True, but it's interesting that some truly great productions are still slipping through the cracks. In the last ten years some really noteable films made overseas in my opinion have been Far from the Madding Crowd (2014), shot on 35mm, and First Man (2018), shot mainly on 2perf 35mm and S16 (well, many scenes in it look absolutely great in my opinion -- the film as a whole maybe not one of favourites but still very good), La La Land (2016), and Westside Story (2021). All shot on film ? Any producers who might happen to wander in to this forum and read some of the things here --- please take note. Shooting feature movies on film is a smart economic move. Yes, yes, yes, got to have a good story, a good screenplay, we know that bit. Don't make the mistake though of thinking that only story matters. How the production is made is just as important. It's hoooowww the story is told that is just as important as the story. You can tell a good story well or you can tell a good story not quite so well. Film is a proven performer at getting a story told well on the big screen. You too can be the producer for whom the ancient knight might well say: "You chose ..... wisely".

Not much to brag about in comparison but I do remember as a kid in South Rd, Brighton, Melbourne, watching the film crew film a scene from 'Division 4' (an Aussie 70s police TV drama series). On 16mm I think.

The film shooters in Australia are a few scattered people in each state who go their own way and do their own thing. If they stick around long enough they tend to drift into all digital work. Got to pay the bills. No great directors or DPs in Australia ever speak up for film that I'm aware of. It's an industry no no now. "My dear boy, we don't talk about film, you understand. It's poor form to mention the word!" You just don't talk about film any more in Australia because industry people think you're just an arty amateur (and maybe you are at that). Do we have much of a feature film industry in Australia? I'm curious. Would love to hear about the state of the actual Australian feature film industry. I hear the occasional report of big budget super hero type movies (that kind of thing) being filmed on the Gold Coast but that's about it. When is an Australian going to make something as good, timeless, apolitical, home-grown, original, and as popular as 'Picnic at Hanging Rock' again in this country? Australians make great filmmakers in my opinion (just look at the ones that Hollywood snapped up). There's still an audience out there that will pay to go and see great pictures.

It's interesting to know the actual timeline of what happened. I missed the changeover to digital because I wasn't paying attention. I was really into filmmaking in my teens and early twenties, mainly on Super 8 with a bit of standard 8mm and 16mm, but I did do a bit of analog video also. I wanted to get into professional 16mm and 35mm and somehow break into feature production (by maybe going to AFTS as it was known then, at North Ryde) but it didn't seem feasible, and eventually I gave up by my mid-twenties. In 2016 I got back into filmmaking again. My initial idea was to make 16mm music videos (of my own music) and post them on You Tube, and then go from there and build things up. I got a Bolex Rex 5, as I had sold my first non-reflex Bolex years ago. I was pretty amazed to discover though that, by that stage, filmmaking on movie film in Australia was nothing like what it had been. The revolution to digital had occurred during the years I was doing other things and also during a period when I wasn't going to the cinema. I started going back to the cinema, taking a careful look at what digital looked like compared to film and I didn't like what I saw and felt that we'd definitely lost something, in this country specifically, in our film industry by going the full digital workflow. The 'big pros' may disagree but, really, I feel that if someone says they can't see the worth of real film just going by the look of it then perhaps they shouldn't be in the business of making motion pictures -- that perhaps they lack the critical discernment necessary for the creative, production side of the arts. Sure, you can have entertainment without any art in it, or not much at all, but it won't be top shelf stuff. By "art" I mean something that looks beautiful, organic, natural, warm, and earthy, rather than cold, flat, and electronic. I still feel that to be restricted only to digital is to be somewhat limited. Film emulation doesn't cut it to my eye -- it just looks exactly like what it is: a digital effect that aims to imitate something of better quality. That thing of better quality being, of course, film. I'm very grateful for Neglab.

It's fascinating that many people retain a very definite memory of what typical film prints of the 70s and 80s looked like projected in cinemas. I can vividly remember in minute detail the look of the print of The Empire Strikes Back that I saw in the cinema in 1980. It was in many places quite grainy, but always to my eye very beautiful. I can remember less vividly as I was younger but still with some degree of clarity the look of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. But to put it into words more exact than that is impossible. I've seen some Blu-Ray transfers that retain a look faithful to what prints looked like in the cinema release. I just chuck this comment in here as I felt like writing something. Films back then looked like art. Art was a massive aspect of the cinema experience but the average cinema goer was probably unaware of it.