Jon O'Brien

For fellow travellers on this journey, coming along after this, here is one little tip that is the golden standard for discerning who is a good person to network with -- someone who is serious about wanting to collaborate with you. Here is the tip. If they're scammers in some way, or not serious, or not true filmmakers, or they're jealous, or wanting only money out of you, they will in clear terms indicate to you that you should "reach out" to them. They will not contact you, other than to say that. They will not call you by your name, they will call you "mate" or some northern hemisphere equivalent. They will tend not to acknowledge you as a real person with a name. They will say to you or hint to you that you need to pay a membership fee and join their organisation. They will say "reach out to ME/to my organisation ..." You will have to do all the "reaching out," as they call it. And you will do that for months. If, being naive, you do pay and join their organisation, you wil be ignored, and then you will leave if you're smart. They are not worth the time. Ditch them and move on. Anyone who is serious will get off their bums and write an email to you or ring you up. If you have something real and concrete and of quality to offer, the truth is that they should be seeking you out. The arts has many scammers and wolves in sheep's clothing walking around pretending to be the 'real thing'. Ha!

I take back what I wrote at the start of this thread, saying I can't come up with a story. I've added script writing to the long list of film production jobs/roles I've taken on. I've got a great little one page synopsis written which I will now turn into a screenplay. After communicating back and forth with various film organisations and individual filmmakers I've finally realised that I will have to do everything myself when I start making short films. I've found that fellow filmmakers don't want a film shooter in their midst -- they are all digital shooters and I can only guess they're concerned that my films, shot on film, might look rather more interesting on the screeen than some of their digitally-shot films. And I've found that everyone else, the non-filmmakers, really truly have no idea that movies are still shot on film. And so they don't get it, and just stare at me and blink, when I say I shoot on Kodak motion picture film. The light is on but no one's home -- that sort of look. I tried to join an amateur/semi-pro movie making organisation recently and received a rude reply from their admin, saying their club stopped shooting on film back in 2010, and, basically, giving me a strong hint to nick off. So, I replied, and said, "Fine. Bye." You can't make this stuff up. Reality is truly stranger than fiction. I've offered to shoot people's films for free. They only need to pay for the filmstock and processing and scanning. I give up. I will ignore other filmmakers from now on, as they're not worth the energy and time. The only thing I need now is actors and locations. I can probably find the actors and the locations all on my own.

Comedy is good. Definitely an option. I will think some more on this.

Sorry, I don't have one up for sale. But I'm curious. What do you plan to use this lens for? Do you film with a S16 size sensor? I think this is a great lens, btw. Very interesting lens and also very heavy, so probably needs support.

Thank you Tim! It looks just the ticket.

I've many times had the pleasure of working with the Sachtler aktiv10 with aktive10T fluid head. Highly recommend. Very light to carry for the payload it can carry. Big enough for heavy chunky 16mm cameras and probably even a IIC etc, should you be so inclined. Very fast and easy to set up. Good for older dudes who don't want to be forever bending down (hey, Jon, what are you saying, you're not all that old yet). Can't fault it so far. No doubt Miller are just as good, they are an excellent Australian product, I've used those too, but I suspect I prefer the Sachtler aktiv gear just a bit more, maybe as I've used it more often. I was actually at Panavision Gold Coast the other day, and the O'Connor fluid heads on top of Ronford Baker legs (I think they were R-B) were truly enormous. Much bigger than the Sachtler akive10 gear. They had a Panavision Millenium XL2 35mm film camera on top. Man what a fantastic camera.

I want to start making short narrative (drama) films. If any turn out good enough, I'd like to start entering them in short film festivals. All of them will be shot on film -- Super 8, 16mm, or 35mm 2-perf. Most likely on S16. I'm good at camera operating and lighting. I've film-tested the cameras and lenses. I have good experience directing. I've figured out how to get the film processed and scanned, and I'm getting better all the time at editing and colour grading. It's been a long road... but I'm now ready to start making proper films. The real deal. ... except for one little thing ... I'm not much good at coming up with stories. If I can get a good short film synopsis or basic plan, I can fill out the details of the shots -- I'm good at that bit. I just need some basic scripts to work with. How do you go about getting a short film script written? I've contacted the Screenwriters Guild in Sydney but no response so far. I suspect they might consider my request for information on how to get a script written to be beneath their institution's dignity as my "productions" would sound to them more like an amateur thing. And maybe it is an amateur thing. But I don't care. Because I'm determined to film some short films, whether amateur or not. Unusually for a short film maker, I'm first and foremost a cinematographer. As someone said to me the other day, at Panavision Queensland on the Gold Coast (during a film loading workshop), it's unusual for a camera operator/cinematographer to be the driving force behind creating a film. Normally a director, producer, or actor is the energy behind the production, and a camera operator is then engaged to film the production. But, because I'm 'camera-focused', or camera-centred, I don't necessarily know how to shape stories -- I only know how to film them. Thus, I need help with getting a story together. I know the generalities of the sorts of films I want to make -- the types of stories, the approximate number of actors, the types of locations, and the general genre. But I need a script writer or some type of screen writer to actually come up with a story that I can film. My films would of necessity be quite short. For example, somewhere between 4 minutes and eight minutes long. They'd, in effect, be like the 'Haiku poems' of the film world. Short and simple, but with meaning. So, any advice on how to go about getting a good story together for a short narrative film?

To use an analogy from music, let's say you're a violinist. You decide you need a better bow, and are willing to shell out some bucks for it. Which bow do you get, when there are maybe 30 good ones to choose from? Do you get the one that bounces the most, or the one that gives the best staccato. No, you pick the one that gives you the best overall sound, or tone. In my view, cameras are just like that. You pick the one that you like the basic image from the most, with minimal fiddling around with the image in post. I'd say you've made a good buy, if you're happy with the images the camera makes. The rest is just getting used to its quirks. Super high definition is a fad that I'm not sure is going to last the distance. I, fwiw, don't like the super sharp look. A lot of people are just exporting their films at around 2K, and for a lot of videography I think this is probably sufficient. No doubt for feature film work you need to film in 4K or higher for various reasons but doesn't sound like you will be doing that with this camera.

I think go with the camera you most like the image from. The specs might not look good 'on paper', and it might have annoying or frustrating aspects like Max mentions, but the main thing is, with minimal tweaking in post, do you like the basic image this camera creates? I find that there are differences. I don't really like the look from a lot of high end video cameras. I like the look you can get from a Canon C300 and I like the images I've seen, at short film festivals, from the Alexa classic. It's probably closest to a film look of a lot of digital cameras I've seen, with minimal work in post. But I'm a film guy, what do I know about digital.

The Elephant Man is my visual favourite for a B/W film. To me, this film is cinema perfection. It has everything. Followed by Casablanca, The Third Man, Random Harvest, and To Have and Have Not.

Tip: if you want to shoot a short film or feature on a low-priced 16mm camera, consider also the Kodak K100 camera. Its image is possibly not consistently as steady as a Bolex, but on the other hand it can be completely steadied in post if working digitally. The K100 is very useful for longer takes, if needed for a shot or shots. But cheaper just to get an electric motor for the Bolex no doubt.

I am actually wondering if this style of filmmaking could be the viable future of cinema. Because traditional big budget movies are crashing in a lot of cases. The talent isn't there any more. Home-grown movies on a small budget, shot with simple gear, on film. Even with voice over dubbing. Focus on story and acting and great locations/settings but film on just 16mm. You know, you could even do it on Super 8. Use a Beaulieu with a 6-66mm on it.

I'd heard of 'Bait' but didn't know it was shot on a spring wound Bolex. That is so cool. I'm going to search this film out. There are so many films I want to see that are shot on film that this one slipped through the cracks. I'd love to do that one day. Film an Australian feature on a 16mm Bolex. Or on an Arri. Doesn't really matter but I must admit the Bolex idea really interests me. So doable in my opinion. Just need to get the right small team together (oh, and the funding for it - insert smiley face here). The chances of such a small and low budget movie recouping its costs if given a cinema release would be pretty high I'd think. That's if it's a great script with great actors, great locations, art direction, etc. Imagine getting Russell Crowe interested in such a production! And some other epic Aussie actors.

Bait looks great! I will definitely see it. Love the style.

Great footage! Thanks for posting. I've always thought snow scapes look fantastic on film. I remember seeing The Empire Strikes Back in 1980, shot, vfx'ed etc and projected on film, and the helicopter work for the snowspeeder POV shots was truly a great look. Film gave a beautiful painted quality to the landscape.

Thank you Ian, that's the best advice I've come across on how to learn how to use a geared head.

Okay, well that suggests to me that it's a camera problem, not processing. I'd get it in a good light, get some magnification happening, and take a really good and careful look at every single mm of pathway that that film is taking inside the film compartment. If you really can find nothing then indeed this is a mysterious problem. Like I said, I'm not a camera technician, but those scratches look very neatly-made and uniformly 'cut'. Therefore, I'd suggest that the scratch is being made at some point in the film compartment where the film is travelling at a constant rate, as in, not in the gate area, where the film stops and starts. But don't quote me. I could be wrong.

That's some pretty noticeable scratches you've got there. I've never seen camera negative look like that, but I've seen film prints shown on projectors that have scratches exactly like it. Usually a burr of metal or similar somewhere in the film path I think. I don't get the feeling it's your film gate. Or maybe anything to do with the Super 16 modification. Because I'd be inclined to think that in that case any scratches would be in line with where the old regular 16mm frame line was or between there and the sprocket holes. Bear in mind though I'm not a camera tech.

I've got a very brief clip filmed on a Super 16 Bolex Rex 5 a few years back. The lens was a Nikkor 50mm. It's not a great scan of the film but I will see if I can get the time to find it, and then upload to Youtube. If I do I will post again here, with the link. I was pleased with the look of the lens. It's a shot of a water bird swimming on a lake. I like the look of the images from that lens compared to the mildly wide angle Switar RX I was also using that day. The colours were better for a start. But that particular Switar isn't a great example.

Why? C'mon Aussie cinematographers! Grow a set and demand film for a few of your projects. We need a rest from all the incessant digital.

Great, that is an exciting use of film. Another example of the growing acceptance of film for filming sports/action shots in a more pro context. For a few years there, some years ago, anyone who wanted to film on film was regarded as a bit of an amateur in some circles. Film of course in many ways makes video look pretty boring in comparison. Where film is best, for the shot, for the clip, for the whole show, or whatever, just shoot film, if you can. It is as simple as that. Digital is still good, for what it's good for. I look forward to seeing some clips of real film come back to TV shows. Just some bits here and there would be great, and give us a rest from all the wall-to-wall digital acquisition. Even just ads. So far in Australia I've seen some TV commercials with faked Super 8 footage, shot on digital, but it's extremely rare to see the real thing yet.

Any chance you could post a link to an example of one of the ski films you really like George? I haven't read the whole thread, but might these films be on YouTube or Vimeo? I'd be interested myself to see them. It's interesting how a few sports/action cinematographers are returning to film. I've noticed that surfing filmmakers have a real love affair going with celluloid film. This could somewhat be due to the influence of 'Morning of the Earth,' that was shot on 16mm and became semi-famous for a while there. Some beautiful film imagery in that movie. The music helped it become popular, too. They released an album of it in the 70s. Really, I'd be inclined to get an Arri 16S if you can pick up a good one for a good price. You are obviously interested in it. As mentioned lenses are expensive but it sounds like you don't need more than one or two. They are a beautiful camera and should keep running with regular maintenance and care for many decades to come. I'm not so sure about some cheaper models. Like I said K100s are hit and miss sometimes. I've got two that won't run.

I'm so glad. Thank you for letting me know. I've contacted the cinematographer and asked him to please repost his excellent video on Youtube. It truly was extremely helpful.

A Bolex would be great but they can be a bit expensive, though as Dom says the non-reflex models are lower in price. Check to see if it's a single or double perf model. I've found that the Kodak K100 is a solid and sturdy camera and would probably suit you for what you want. They tend to be less expensive than Bolexes but can be a bit hit and miss when you buy one from ebay. I've found the picture isn't as steady as the images from a Bolex (at least the ones I've tried). The image can be steadied easily in post if you are scanning and exhibiting digitally. Some of these cameras look like they've had an extremely tough life. I've bought a few at a great price and some work and some don't. Actually I'm thinking of asking Dom to open up one for me and see if he can fix it. It looks fine on the outside and inside the film compartment. Another affordable possibility might be a Bell & Howell Filmo but I'd recommend getting one of the later versions. Do a search on best Filmo models to get. All the best with your search. You just have to dive in somehow and start the learning process with any old camera that you can afford and that will work.

Thanks for that information guys. I didn't know about the elephant ears cameras or remodelled Technicolor bodies. Fascinating. Certainly looks easier to make a blimp for than having horizontally positioned mags. But as you say, still enormous.