Jon O'Brien

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.

Looks amazing Bob. Kind of made my afternoon. I love the interchange between the Super 8 and the 16mm too. A short burst of 16mm every now and then is a good effect. Perfect.

Videography has gotten too slick-looking and I find it boring. All the videographers shoot with the same handheld or slow mo style as each other, the same editing, etc, and everyone thinks it's all so terribly impressive. Ho hum. I too am thinking of going back just to film. Then again for concert videos it's good to have a camera that's very cheap to shoot an hour's or more worth of footage, and records audio. But all the slick gimbal DSLR shots? Not me. Hire the other guy. You won't have trouble finding a dude to shoot your video as absolutely everyone knows some young person with a Sony on a gimbal. And they will probably do it for free.

Merry Christmas Tassanee! I have a Super 16-modified Bolex Rex 5 camera, with Nikon adapter mount that screws into the C mount on the turret. I've used a Nikkor 50mm f1.8mm lens to great effect with this camera. The thing about reflex Bolex cameras is that they have a prism, between the film gate and the back of the lens, that deflects some of the light coming in from the lens into the reflex viewfinder. This prism, located only a few mm inside the front of the camera, unfortunately alters the optics of the light getting to the film. Thus Bolex reflex cameras need special "Rx" lenses that are made for these cameras, which can compensate for the effect of the prism. However, there are ways to get around this if using non-Rx lenses. One way is to film with the non-Rx lens stopped down to at least f4. Another way is to use lenses 50mm or longer in focal length. So a Nikkor 50mm lens should be fine to use but of course for 16mm it is a telephoto lens. But you will need to shoot tests, of course, to be sure. I've found that the look of the Nikkor lens for a 16mm Bolex is very good. All the best with your EL!

This topic is for narrative productions, sure, where there's usually a lot of artistic input as to how a shot looks. But in videography I find myself stressing about clipping parts of shots but it's often unavoidable. In filming a violin and piano performance recently for instance the pianist had a stand light illuminating her music. But because the scene was filmed in natural room light most of the piano score in front of the pianist was clipped. I just couldn't avoid that, given the necessities of camera placement and needing the pianist in the shot as this was specifically requested. But I don't like the clipped look. If I'd gotten rid of the clipping the whole shot would have been underexposed. Is there any other way around this? Videography is often not easy to get a good look.

I will do my best to advise. I'm certainly no Bolex expert, but I would look at this source of information if you haven't already: http://www.bolexcollector.com/articles/07_05_11.html As far as I'm aware this website has a reasonably good reputation. Just make sure that the serial number is, according to the bolexcollector site, above 76471. See the footnote "S/N 76471 (H16 only)" I'd go a little above that serial number. Eg. choose a higher number to make sure you get a single sprocket camera. Make sure the camera runs cleanly and makes a nice regular whirring sound. It's a precision machine and should sound like one. Ask the seller how long a single wind of film lasts at 24 fps. I'm pretty sure it's ideally supposed to be about 28 or 29 seconds. Don't run the camera faster than 24 fps without film in it. Does the film speed sound constant, up to just before the spring runs out? Is the lens clear? Is there fog or fungus? Also crucially, do the focus and aperture rings turn easily and do the aperture blades look fine? Look down into the lens from both ends if you can. Best wishes Jordan and I hope you get a good camera! I've found Bolex cameras to be pretty dependable and steady, so far. I've tried a few. I used to feel a bit frustrated when old salts would say to me "just get a camera that works and start filming. Don't stress about getting the perfect camera or one that ticks most or all the boxes for what you want or desire. The main thing is just start filming." Guess what. They were right. I now say the same to people contemplating getting a film camera. Get anything that works, and start filming.

It's easy to say for me, as I've had my fill of Super 16 and can sit back and bask in that glow of at least having had an opportunity of trying it several times, but I must admit I agree with Frank, above. I'd not bother with it, and just have a simpler life with regular 16mm. That is, unless you are seriously shooting a feature movie, destined for cinemas, and you have to shoot it on 16mm, or bust. Only then can I see a justification for the extra fuss of Super 16. These days regular 16mm with a high quality scan looks wonderful.

Hi Deniz, Thanks for your comment on what I wrote. It's good and interesting to get feedback that is fair and reasoned. I think a lot of people will love the look of this picture. One of my brothers in law said to me the other day he loves a certain videographer's work because his shots look "so clean." I think he was referring to that ultra clean video look so many seem to love. I'm not into it myself but that's just me. I like a grungy arty look. Don't even know why! Something to do with painting I think. My mum was a painter and steered clear of a 'clean' look so maybe that's got something to do with it. Anyway, I wish the filmmakers every success with this new movie. And hope that other big names in filmmaking continue to make their feature movies on film, to help keep Kodak and real film alive ? Jon

They say if you can't say anything good then say nothing at all. But I thought I'd say that this is the first example I can think of in my life where a trailer put me off seeing the film. I don't think I will go to see it. I love going to the movies and keep looking for good opportunities to go to the cinema. I don't like the look of the movie from what I saw in the trailer. It looked like a made for TV video on the trailer. I like the gritty look of film for period pictures. To each their own. I think Scott should go back to film for his productions but that's his choice. I'm sure it's a very well made movie, with great acting and camera work and everything.

I've got a K100 turret model that isn't working. You can wind the spring but nothing happens when you press the run button. Not a sound. Totally jammed but the spring itself seems to be fine. I read somewhere that problems like this usually mean the advance claw or shutter are somehow jammed. I'd be really interested Mike to hear how you go with repairing your non-working K100s. If I can repair mine, I will post here what I did and what I learned.

I think the new Kodak Super 8 camera will sell enough for it to be a success. Get off Kodak's back those people saying negative things. It's okay if you don't like Super 8 but accept that a lot of people know it's characteristics and love it. Many will love the new camera and it matters not one bit if they are hobbyists or pros or anything in between. Speaking of 2-perf, it would look fantastic cropped to 2.1:1 or 2.20:1 for a feature movie. Just enough grain on the big screen to see it's film/give it slight bit of texture and grit. That etched look, sharp as a tack. A la Once Upon a Time in the West. From what I've seen on the big screen 3-perf has a slightly more pristine look closer to digital in appearance. But that's perfect for some things. There doesn't need to be a 'war' between the 3-perf and the 2-perf. That's just silly.

I'm sure Super 8 can be made to look really sharp and impressive, getting somewhat towards a 16mm look, but I'm not really interested in it for that. I specifically got back into Super 8 because I wanted a format that looks obviously like film when viewed on a phone screen. It might surprise some, but 50D 16mm can look very clean and pristine on a phone screen. On a computer screen you can see that 16mm is actually scanned film, but on a phone only Super 8 looks very obviously like real film. Most young people tend to watch videos on their phones, and many of them really love Super 8. That's why I'm back into it. They're the ones getting married, and hopefully wanting wedding films (if they can afford them). Otherwise, I'd shoot 16mm and 35mm only. Lately I'm thinking even 16mm looks too grainy for a short film or feature movie, and ideally I'd shoot only 35mm 2-perf. Maybe one day.

I met John Seale the other day. He was in Brisbane for a talk. I went up to him after the talk and spoke with him briefly, asking him how he shot 'Witness' and other questions. A very down to earth and likeable man. I shook his hand when it was time for him to leave. Wow.

That's very true. A lot of people whinge about the cost of shooting film but it's not impossibly expensive. If you want something enough you will find a way to do it. I think Karim is right. This new camera could really oil the wheels of interest out there, in a whole new generation of filmmakers. It will cause a stir, one way or the other. It will generate new interest and new creativity. Well done Kodak!

Or use a Zacuto EVF, if that's possible, as Giray said.