Jon O'Brien

This is just getting daft. It will end up coming soon to a political stoush. You just watch. One half of the world wants to suspend capitalism and bring in temporary socialism. Ha! I mean, ... HA!! Yeah, guys, that's really going to work. I'm sorry, we're going back to work soon. Trump ... just watch what he does soon.

Don't forget that there can be unexpected good news. It can happen. Do everything you can to help the situation, be practical, wash your hands carefully and often and limit your exposure to large groups of people. And don't give in to doom and gloom. There's always hope. I'd humbly suggest that the time is coming for people to get down on their knees and sincerely pray. Prayer can really, really work.

Yep health is always the most important thing but if people can't make a living there are going to be even more widespread problems. Pretty much universal I'd imagine, to some extent (unless we're talking about the mega rich living on personal islands or something). At some point I think public opinion might move towards ending the lockdown approach.

Just shoot on film. Let digital be digital, and film, film. I'm going ahead with 35mm here in Australia. I must be one of the last.

Ah ha! I'm not camera technician but a slipping drive belt was my first diagnosis. I don't mean to contradict anyone though. Just my thoughts of what occurred to me.

Actually, looking at the second image carefully, you can see it was briefly stationary, and then seems to have advanced while the shutter was still open. That would seem to suggest the film suddenly slipped. But there endeth my speculation.

Oh, okay. So it's direct drive and pretty much impossible for shutter sync to go out and then come back again. In that case, as mentioned, it could be a combination of worn claw, with too much pressure from plate (or rather just the whole system a bit worn/out of adjustment), the loop starting to get lost a bit, then the film 'jumps' ahead past the gate as it releases. Off to a technician I'd say ?

I'm only guessing but I'd say a mistimed shutter rather than loop problem or worn claw. The blur lines are very clean, showing that the film advanced smoothly in an uninterrupted stroke while the shutter was open. Yet the problem comes and goes, so there's more to it. I don't know the mechanism of that camera but at a rough guess I'd say something is slipping in the mechanism that times the shutter with the pulldown claw.

Exciting news. I also am looking into buying some B&W 35mm motion picture film.

One final comment (I'm posting too much). A lot of highly-original movies have quite a quirky element to them, but it's an element that never extends into the disgusting or plain weird/stupid. One of the highlights of cinema in my opinion is the scene in Superman (1978) when he first appears 'in public' as his true self - the helicopter scene when he saves Lois. That's a pretty quirky scene in some ways. He's sort of daggy (an Australian word meaning not very cool) but also really uber-cool, all at the same time, a point acknowledged by the streetwise gentleman who compliments him on his coolness factor. In other word, his unusual and interesting and stand-out character comes to the fore. Dirty Harry, a politically-incorrect but original 70s film starring Clint Eastwood, had original, quirky scenes in it too that gave it real flavour. The scene of Harry walking past the spouting fire hydrants, his .44 hanging down in his hand, sauntering across the street while still chewing his lunch, momentarily looking at the buckshot wounds in his leg as he walks across - that speaks bucket-loads of unusual character. Which speaks of an audience whose attention has been caught.

This is where a very good actor rises to such importance in the success of a film - because of the depiction of character. For instance, think of the unforgettable characters portrayed in very original movies by actors such as Gene Hackman, Gene Wilder (two Genes in a row!), Greer Garson and Julie Christie - just to name some amazing actors that come to my mind straight away. Put such people in a good location/sets, direction, art direction, story/script, cinematography .... just amazing success if all goes well But it's the characters that we remember most and people like this will make those characters come to life on the screen. Are such actors born or are they made by great directors?

A brilliantly-made film adaptation of Homer's Odyssey would, I think, make a great movie, shot on film of course would by my preference for such a project ? It would need to be condensed to a screen version in my view. But wow, what a film it could be if made by a genius. The Bible is full of timeless stories that have important truth embedded in them. For thousands of years those stories have been told.

I agree with AJ Young. I think creative people can get carried away sometimes with the idea of originality, but I think originality is generally overrated. Not that it's bad - it's truly great when something new, something original is made that works very well as entertainment (or as anything, really). But I've always felt that you have the best chance of coming up with something original by just being relaxed about the whole thing and concentrating on what you love doing. If you end up making something that's quite original, wow, that's an extra good thing. But most things aren't orginal, when you think about it. We get up in the morning and if it's a great morning the sun is shining, birds are singing, it's wonderful but none of it is original. But that endlessly repeatable morning is still an incredible miracle that we should be thankful for. To be chasing originality too much is, to me, to be oppressed by an unrealistic expectation. In art, such a motivation to always seek to be original and different can result in a forced weirdness (at least, so it seems to me, often) - like artists coming up with works that are actually pretty disgusting - like visual art that's physically made of, um, something unpleasant (like various notorious artworks that have come to public notice over the years, a notable one involving an image of Christ that was just pointlessly disgusting). The best bet, anyway, with originality is just don't care for it. If you're pretty good at what you do, it will make its presence known in some way in your work. As mentioned above, George Lucas simply retold a tale that's been told around campfires down through the ages, then on stage, then in novels, then in films, etc. He personally was fired up with enthusiasm for his story and because he's naturally a creative person with a lot of energy his films couldn't help but have an original stamp to them. I really enjoy some of the latest films being made, as much as I enjoyed the latest movies as a teenager and younger person. I think seeing cinema-release movies in an actual cinema helps a lot. I've always liked films that told stories about people - their struggles and triumphs, stories that made you leave the cinema feeling good or feeling thoughtful about some of the mysteries of life. Films that try to work on the vanity of the viewer, which as I see it a lot of comic book action movies do, that seem to want to make us think we could be a super hero - these films I don't enjoy. We aren't superheros. The original Superman The Movie (1978) was good because it told the story of someone who really was a superhero. But generally we need more movies about common, garden variety people and their incredible stories. Life is an incredible story when you think about it. Film should tap into that.

Richard, I respect you and people like you because you generate new projects and you're clearly the energy behind the whole enterprise. In a way, you might be called a primary producer. You generate something new and something needed, creating benefits that spread out into the community. What you do and what you've got to say here is very important. Your views and what you relate about your experiences in the industry are interesting to read because they reveal an actual knowledge of what goes on from the perspective of someone generating jobs and opportunities. Someone in your position has every right to promote what you do here, and to occasionally make fair and valid complaint against unfair, meddlesome treatment from taxpayer-funded public servants who have never gotten off their bums and taken risks and gotten projects up and running all the way through to completion like you have. They know nothing of the sort of frustration that leaders of such enterprises as you take on must face. Of course people like you are going to encounter obstacles. That's what happens to people who stand out and take risks. People like you actually generate an industry from the ground up, from which technicians and people in associated industries can benefit. You have a financial responsibility, as the leader of a large group of people who rely on you for work and opportunities, to make a profit from what you actually produce, thus promoting what you do here makes complete sense and I'd expect it of anyone in your shoes. It's great to see in your post how you have given wonderful opportunities to a talented person. Very encouraging that there are people like you on cinematography.com

Thank you Max, I will check out the Sennheiser MKH 416 shotgun mic. Great to have your opinion on it. It's interesting to read your view on Rode mics. I have no experience with them, but one of my friends who's a professional musician and has done a lot of music recording says they're great. I will look into it some more. Hey, I'm Australian, gotta buy Australian if I can ?

That's very helpful. Thank you.

Something I've noticed over the years is how the so-called compassionate people of the progressive left are not actually very compassionate at all. They have a really hard edge and will attempt to throw you under a bus if you challenge their mainstream views. In universities now a speaker not from the left, addressing a topic fairly challenging a progressive ideal, will be shouted down. It's a strategy that's failing progressives now. People are seeing through it and can see they are not actually compassionate at all but are in love with their own ideals, statistics, self-serving research, and all the rest of it. The whole ugly bandwagon is losing its wheels. Thank God, at last.

I think women make great cinematographers, just like men do. There doesn't seem to be many of them - but I would think people would go out of their way to help a woman who showed interest and talent in this field. I would, if I could. Is there a woman here who can comment on how she has experienced efforts to get into a male-dominated field? One of my favourite recent movies for cinematography was shot by a woman DP. I comment on how I and others I know have experienced things, and not on what an online encyclopedia tells me is so. I say cut Richard some slack. I think he's a great contributor here, as is Dom. Sounds like Richard has had an awful time lately putting up with a troublesome organisation that are not acting in a fair and balanced way. It's okay to complain about that!

Phil, you ask for evidence. There's a dumb, double-standard discrimination that occurs in many workplaces today, and I and people I know have experienced it. That's my evidence, and if you don't believe it then fine. I'm really against it. It doesn't officially exist and yet it's commonplace. It's just a plain fact. You aren't aware of it? I don't have any cool online encyclopedia articles to quote or link to. If you're curious, and truly unaware of what so many people are now saying, talk to some people about it. Talk to some teachers or people like that. A lot of online information regarding politically-charged topics from large organisations is heavily biased in favour of progressive, left wing ideals that are seriously damaging a lot of good, traditional things in society. There will inevitably be a reaction against that, in how people vote. It can take generations before change starts to happen. I believe society is starting to readjust to a more healthy balance.

Stick around David! You're a really interesting person with a lot of talent and a proven very high artistic achievement in cinematography. You're contribution is very much needed. Stick around and fight for what you believe in. I don't trust all I read on the internet. For every political 'fact' on the internet there's often a challenge to it. Progressives want to change what was traditional. But are they making a better world? Is the truth difficult to face? I think it sucks that many men have been pushed out of a workplace that doesn't value them like it used to. That's a really serious problem. Why do so many people not like to face this really difficult fact? They deny it. They look up Wikipedia articles, like it was Scripture provided by God. But, you know, Wikipedia articles are just written by people. Fallible people.

It's the strange implosion of the western world. The new topsy-turvy world where men and women don't exist, and people don't have families, and it's all sort of old fashioned and uncool to point this out. We're not men and women anymore. We're cis-gendered or something. My care factor fell to zero on so-called political correctness a long time ago. Same with most people I know. A revolution in the west is coming and it's going to be really, really big.

In the field in which I am most qualified and talented, I won't say what it is, and I don't want anyone to think I'm playing the world's smallest violin for sympathy: the field is now run by women. It's wall to wall women at all levels. In some workplaces where I live there are, in effect, almost no men who work in this field at all and if they do they are very fortunate. Maybe the boss at the top is a man but I've been in many workplaces where the boss and all her admin assistants etc are women too. It's not easy to find work in the field I should be working in. And yet in this field it was once men who were the dominant gender. Do I care about women trying to get more jobs that men do? Nope. My God, save your job and don't do anything rash like assume women need extra quotas. If you don't care about yourselves then care about the future of your sons, and the men that your daughters might one day hope to start a family with.

Ouch! That seems a harsh judgement to make on people who by necessity or free choice have chosen to stake their film activities on 16mm and/or 2 perf. I'm not a pro, though I'm really interested in filmmaking, and in my past I was heavily into Super 8 and a bit of 16mm filmmaking. I saw an opportunity to buy a couple of Arri 35mm cameras and got a pro in Victoria, Bruce McNaughton, to modify the cameras, that he'd already modified to 2 perf, to Nikon mount - thus instantly rendering the lens possibilities as affordable. I also have a Bolex Super 16 camera. I think the main attraction of 16mm and 2 perf, especially if you have dreams of seeing your films one day projected on the big screen (even if only at a small film festival), is that they both show grain and you can see that the films were actually shot on celluloid. The downside, especially with 2 perf, is that the vintage anamorphic lens effects that I really like the look of aren't available. Then again, I hope to experiment with stills lenses and see if I can come up with photography that captures some nice and painterly images that although different to what one can see with anamorphic nevertheless has some charm of its own. But that's a disadvantage of 2 perf - that it's all spherical lenses and you can miss out on the sometimes great look you can get with anamorphic. With 4 perf anamorphic 35mm films that I see at the cinema I find, with digital projection, that the projection technique itself adds a huge ingredient into the visual mix. The digital look, which I find generally glassy, plastic and metallic in a way I can describe no other way, and find film photography and projection at the opposite extreme of 'warm and painterly', has an effect on the exhibition of films shot on celluloid. So, to get around that digital contribution to the look of the movie, you can shoot on either 16mm or 2 perf 35mm, and therefore see more clearly that the movie was shot on celluloid. That, in the end, is an artistic choice. Ideally though, in my dreams, I'd shoot Panavision 4 perf anamorphic, and have the film printed and projected on film projectors. My goal is to achieve a film look. Because I think it looks great! The other thing is that with digital projection the definition is so good and clear that 2 perf can easily be cropped to other aspect ratios and still look fantastic. I've been thinking of shooting on 2 perf but cropping to 2.20:1 as I really like that aspect ratio.

These are usually the lesser-talented people. There are filmmakers who like the look and process of celluloid filmmaking. They can be none of those things above. They're just gonna shoot film, and that's their story. There's watercolour, there's oil paints .... big deal. Stand back and let them do their thing. If they're good then wow, another good filmmaker out there making films. The argument goes the other way, because a person of poor talent with an Alexa isn't going to be better for shooting digital. Doesn't matter whether it's digital or what. I think the new Kodak slogan is good. It's a little bit pushy. Which is probably what's needed. Film was mercilessly hounded by the digital push-outers so it needs to push back. All's going to be fine for film, because, well ... it's a natural talent.

Thanks Tyler! I appreciate the advice. Why is having more than two XLR inputs important? I would have thought two was enough but am all ears to learn more. The H6N is about a hundred bucks AUD more expensive but that should be fine. You mention 4k and 6k. Is a 2k or even 1080P camera fine for most purposes even today, assuming that the company paying for the videos don't really care or have their 'knickers in a knot' (do Americans understand this phrase?) on whether it's 4k or above? You know, some people just have to have 4k or they don't think it's good enough, even though no one can really tell the difference looking at it? A lot of our videos would be destined for just average online viewing, possibly even just Instagram. It's possible some could end up on DVD, as we still make and sell DVDs (mainly the US division makes them, not the Australian one but hopefully that will change). They've done a few cinema-release films, before I joined the company, but at this stage there are none in the planning stages that I know of. It's mostly just small online videos they're talking about. There's a lot about the digital filmmaking world I need to learn, fast.