Jon O'Brien

Got my used R-B legs. They are amazingly good. Very pleased. Film stock next.

I think, find your joy, your hope, in this world. Find something/somebody you love. Find something/somebody that loves you back. It's out there. Do what you love, as long as it's a good thing. There's a lot of love and good in the world. We just have to believe that it's there. There's a lot of dark too. Walk away from that. Find your joy and don't ever let it go.

This is a profound truth.

Put Star Wars on the telly, DVD or Blu-ray. You know, the original one. Have a look at the shots of R2D2 and C-3PO as they walk along the corridors, and go into that other section of the spacecraft where they encounter the Princess. Especially note the closer up shots. Digital will never look like that. Never. Film has an earthy, 'etched', slightly gritty yet saturated, 'fat' sort of look. That would cost millions of bucks to generate entirely digitally, trying to cook up an organic photochemical celluloid image look from number crunching CPUs. It won't ever happen. Maybe not enough people out there care enough. But I think they do. Do common garden variety audiences note the beauty of oils and the European masters? My friends...yes, oh yes....they do.

Congrats and well done on your choice. Sounds a wise decision to me based on your reasoning.

Thing is, it's not kinda silly to see that, at the moment, for the sort of movies I like, digital can take a backseat. If one....day.......digital looks like film, then terrific, I'm all for it, I will throw my film cameras into the sea. There, their metal components will rapidly oxidise and become one with the sea in the ebb and flow of time. But for now, I'm into film and, man, you should know, it is uber cool. I've always said digital is great for what it's great at. But for trying to be film? It should only try to be what it is. Just as we should try to be ourselves and not someone else.

Somewhere in orbit, two powerful figures stand in a darkened room by a wide viewport overlooking the Earth. One is tall, somewhat thickly set, and clad in shiny black armour and helmet, with flowing black cape. His breath rasps softly through the grill in his mask. His companion is of lighter build, an older man with receding hair, and carries a serious expression in his eyes. The two in silence survey the shining globe before their view. And then the taller one turns to his companion and in deep, resonating voice says, "Today will be a day long remembered. It has seen the end of digital's claim of utter victory, ...and will soon see the end of the rebellion."

I communicated with Werner at Neglab only a few months ago, and all sounds like it is still rolling along fine. I will have some more footage to send him soon. Cameraquip in Melbourne scans 16mm and 35mm neg. And so all is well. Interest is high in the film industry here - with the people I speak with.

Yes it is a noble art. There is something mesmerising about that glowing, smoking centre in the coals, and the air being pumped up through it - the forge had a hand operated air pump. It breathes a strange energy. Sparks flying and the pure acoustic notes from the struck iron and steel. The working job plunged into water. Good heavens, I'm starting to get all philosophic about it.

I once did real blacksmithing work, at the forge on the job - on rainy days. Yes, like Joe Gargery himself. In the mid-eighties (that's last century, not the one before that). The boss liked doing things the old way. True story. Only in Queensland, I guess. Dom, keep going, might get you to do some tinkering on a camera of mine, one of these days. If you want to.

Is the 35-III also somewhat electronically controlled as well? I notice in pictures that it has a couple of push buttons and a small led display. Some cameras have circuit boards and some don't. Presumably the Arri II and 35-III will go on almost indefinitely provided the parts don't get too worn. If real film is to survive as a viable production alternative eventually some company is going to have to start making replacement parts. It could happen if interest grows enough. Presumably Panavision still makes parts for their cameras - or has a stockpile of parts that will last a long time. There is talk about photographic film itself maybe dying but the hardware that runs the stuff won't last forever at peak operating condition. Of course some aren't too concerned about that but people who use film equipment would have to be at least curious about the future.

Emailed Ronford Baker and got this swift reply: "Our two stage Medium duty tripod will take 60 Kgs. Best Regards"

I looked, but it doesn't say. From other websites eg. Abelcine it looks like medium duty R-B might support up to 150 lbs. Heavy duty up to 200 lbs.

What is the maximum payload weight of a Ronford Baker Medium Duty tripod? And a R-B Heavy Duty? By maximum weight I mean what combined weight of camera and fluid head can the legs carry? Thank you.

Just joking.

Always listen to the other side of the story. And if you can't find it, still be open to the possibility it's out there somewhere ? We are a biased lot us humans - especially the ones who claim they have none. This is just a general comment - I'm not at all being critical of Tyler's opinion on the Nikon.

Shhh!

Yay Nikon!! I think if I got a digital camera it would be UMP with Nikons.

On an Arri IIC groundglass I had somewhere I believe the rounded inner rectangle is for framing film that was eventually to be broadcast on television. So I suspect you would frame your shot using the outer rectangle. But check with others. That's not a dumb question at all. I remember when I started a job, I asked a much more senior person there "Can I ask a dumb question?" about how to do something at work for that job. He said, "No, there are no dumb questions. Fire away." He was a kind fellow.

I've just lately seen some rather high prices asked for things in the late model top of the line film cameras. I don't even want to quote what I saw. Seems like it could be getting unrealistic. That's what I'm thinking. School leavers take note (maybe).

When you say strong video tap, would an Arri 35-III with video tap viewfinder be adaptable to a modern production crew provided the video camera was state of the art (it's a noisy MOS camera, I know, so no good for sync sound)?

Who will service film cameras as the years go by, as most camera techs still extant are getting on in years somewhat, are they not? (well, ye know, sure the same might be said of meself, says I leaning on me shillelagh). Are the flashier, more 'electronic' models going to encounter internal problems? For instance an ST or 416 might pop a circuit board in years to come and it might be difficult to replace it. I'd think market prices for film cameras should reflect that reality.

Good to know. I like this camera as it is small, comparatively light, yet quiet. And well, can one admit it? It looks so professional!

Also, with video and AF with these small stills-type look cameras, how do you get on with audio possibly picking up lens motor noise?

I think in some cases you don't absolutely need cinema glass. It depends on your situation, and if the lenses work well for you. It will be interesting to see with AF which of the originally still camera companies like Nikon manage to make a system that works really well with video. Just need to do a lot of research. Those AF stills lenses are terrible for manual focus, the ones I've tried. They have internal motors and very short and clunky travel. And no aperture ring.