Jon O'Brien

Yes, drawing attention to a weapon would be a great use of a flare. I love where raw sunlight does sometimes 'splash' across the lens/across the film, when filming outdoors and into or near the sun. I agree, it's part of the texture of film. Film loves sunlight, and at such moments it's like the film is absolutely doused in the magic of light. I suppose I was commenting on the regular use of the horizontal blue flare in many shots, for instance in interior shots where it wouldn't necessarily happen naturally but is artificially created, but I understand if people love that look too.

If people like anamorphic flares that's fine. I don't understand the big interest in them, and people adding them in using lights at the side of the camera, except as a sort of light hearted joke perhaps -- or as a 'homage' to some famous film. I do like the slight horizontal flare when the train pulls into the station in Doctor Zhivago (1965) but that's the only example I can think of that, to me, adds a little extra zest to a shot. It could easily go without. I prefer the look of spherical lenses these days. I don't know what's come over me.

Thanks Dom. Great to have your input. I've seen Uli's recent film and love the look of it. Uber cool is all I can say.

I don't know if Gladiator (2000) qualifies as a 90's style looking movie but I must say it has a fantastic look. Watched it again recently (twice, once with the commentary from Ridley Scott and the DP). Shot all with spherical lenses on 35mm. I don't know how it was transferred to DVD but it has a look to the colour and texture that I really like. Looks so much better to me than many of the latest movies at the cinema. Looks almost like it was scanned from a print.

In my previous post, somehow Tyler's quote disappeared before I hit submit. So, the quote is from the article that he linked to.

Great quote: "To me, the cinematography of a film is like the music in a film; it's there to express a feeling ..."

A difficult question to answer, really, that I asked above. It requires someone who knows both lenses well. Has anyone got any opinions about either lens? Always keen to hear your views.

Thank you so much Gregory for this information. I didn't know such huge cranes were used for control of sunlight. At first I was surprised that this is necessary, but on further thought it makes sense as it allows the middle of the day to be used on external daytime shoots. You don't have to wait for the light.

For Super 16, what really is the difference between the Kern Switar H16 Rx f1.4 25mm, and the Kern Macro Switar H16 Rx f1.1 26mm? They both are said to cover Super 16. They are both Rx, thus good for use with the reflex Bolexes. There is only a tiny difference in speed. Why the enormous price difference? The former I've seen in the low hundreds and the latter in the low thousands. Can one generalise and say which of the two lenses is generally sharper and makes altogether more appealing images? Or are they both good?

Shooting on 50D and putting in a 0.9 ND is sounding better and better, rather than try and use 250D. Or shoot in the shade and as the light is starting to fade in late afternoon. I did think about closing the variable shutter down 1 stop Doug but I've not tried this before. I know the interesting look they got in the opening battle scenes in Gladiator were filmed with a faster shutter, where mud flying up in the air had a 'staccato' look that heightened the drama of the action. Do you know if a faster shutter will mean that pans or other movement will come out looking unusual? Shooting at higher speed is a great idea too.

Quite a few cinematographer show/demo reels these days have a similar look, with the very slow motion tracking moves of the camera in nearly every shot, towards or away from the subject, then in the next shot to the left, then to the right in the following shot, and so on. Always these 'moody', super-suave moves. Then come the drone shots. It's cinematographic kitsch.

The pulling out of the filter holder regularly is going to add to the risk of dust or lint getting onto the filter and it will be difficult to check for it. A matte box really is necessary for serious filming.

That's a relief. I will get a heavy cloth and drape it over to minimise light getting in, just in case. These filters are not easy to find. I've been looking for 0.9 and 1.2 ND which would be ideal (3 and 4 stops) but so far can only find second hand 0.6 (2 stops). The alternative is shoot on 50D.

Thanks guys. I was thinking buying old gelatin filters might be a bit hit and miss but if it's a matter of getting a whole stack for a small price, and going through them for the usable ones, then that's a good solution. Now, with a dark ND in place, I'm anticipating that it's going to be difficult to see much through that Bolex viewfinder! Is it possible to pull the filter out, in between shots for focusing etc, then slide back in and hit run? I know this will fog at least a few frames. But does anyone know if it will potentially fog the whole film compartment?

Sounds good Brian. Here are about the only (new) gelatin filters I can find for sale. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/503623-REG/Kodak_1964741_3_x_3_Neutral.html They are for 0.9 ND. Is this the type that can be cut by hand and put inside a filter holder on a Bolex?

I'm doing some shooting soon on a Bolex Rex-5, with 250D. Among other things I would like to shoot outdoors in daytime with the same filmstock and therefore need to use ND filters. At this stage I don't have a matte box for the Bolex, and can't find screw-in glass filters for the Kern 16mm lens I've got. Can I use gel ND filters such as the Kodak Wratten ND filters? Can these filters be cut with scissors to fit into the Bolex behind-the-lens filter holder? Kodak also sells "Optical filters" -- are these similar to gels? I will be using a Kern Rx 16mm and a Nikon 50mm on the turret. Thanks for any advice!

Can you get good results from a heavy fluid head that's ideally made for something along the lines of a fully kitted-out Arri 35-3 for a much lighter weight 16mm camera? Do the big fluid heads not have enough smoothness for the pans and tilts if the camera is too light for it? Or better to go too big/heavy than too small/light when it comes to fluid heads? I've got an old Ronford & Baker F15 on really solid legs and want to know if I can use it for lighter 16mm work as well (for now). Later I hope to get a smaller tripod and head.

Yes, I was getting rather a different impression to Dom of how 16mm is currently going. Top of the line Super 16 gear at the moment is going higher in price it seems. Sure, S16 lenses are used by the digital people too but S16 film camera bodies themselves are going up. 416's are scarily high in price if one ever becomes available. 2 perf 35mm cameras also seem to be sought-after but are as rare as hen's teeth. 3 perf is much sought after too. It's really the look people want. If you want a super sharp digital image then that's great -- you can get it. If you want the 16mm look it's available too. It's great that film looks like it's doing quite well.

Hi Jake, I don't know if this is helpful but there is a cinematographer on YouTube called Lewis Potts who shows in one of his videos how he uses his phone, taped over the eyepiece of his Bolex. He uses the phone camera as a type of video tap. If you don't mind me chiming in on this topic: If anyone can help with advice, I also have a question related to video tap. If you have the older style of video tap, that was later added to the viewfinder system of, say, an Arri SR, in a conversion, does the video tap make the SR optical viewfinder significantly darker? If the video tap is taken off and the attachment point plugged, does this then render the viewfinder just as bright as it would have been without the video tap being attached?

Thanks Aapo, that's very informative. Is there a particular model or type of light meter you can recommend, that works well for measuring ambient light level? I have a Sekonic L-398A meter which is more the old-fashioned type. Do you use some kind of digital meter?

And let us further assume that both were in Super 16 -- that the SR had been converted and had a SR3 S16 gate in it.

If you could choose between a slightly worn SR3 that has seen much use, or an immaculate German-modified SR which has hardly ever been used, and assuming both have been recently checked and both run fine, and are up-to-date with battery supply etc, which would you prefer? Is the SR3 significantly quieter? I'm guessing, if the SR3 is a bit old, then not necessarily.

How can hand held light metering, when shooting, say, on a 16mm Bolex without TTL metering, be speeded up to the maximum? What techniques and types of light meters work best? The reason for my question is that I'm interested in doing some film shooting for weddings on 16mm. I've shot a wedding on Super 8 with auto TTL metering on the camera and that was straightforward and fairly low stress. But I'm starting to wonder how shooting a wedding is going to go when using 16mm. You can't exactly call out when the groom is about to put the ring on and say, "Hang on... just got to get the f-stop." Thanks for your helpful advice.

Is Les Bosher still doing this sort of work? Who else in the world is currently considered the best for putting a PL mount on, say, an Aaton, or a hardfront with PL mount on a IIC? Thanks for any info. Bruce at Aranda Film in Melbourne told me in an email that he's closed up his workshop permanently. The end of an era.

Kind of an apt title. No time to die ... for celluloid cinematography that is. It lives. Yay!