Jon O'Brien

Did you get a Canon, Samuel? I think you were interested in the EOS C200?

I did laugh though, when I saw that camera. What a classic. I wondered if it was part of the gag. Very impressive collection of wires and gadgets but if that's standard now then fair enough. Speeds things up/makes it more efficient.

Yep you are right Robin, content is by far the most important thing. The rest is just how do you like your meat pie. Sauce on top? It's all good. Digital has won the day, I'm just putting my good word in for film. It needs every bit of support it can get. Agree about your to-the-point comment about money. Of course - it's really about getting food on the table and keeping up with the bills that hound one until we leave this life. The passion bit is nice though, if you can get it so to speak. That's all I'm on about. Peace to all.

Here's another aspect to consider. The current younger generations are, from what I've seen and heard, very interested in art, and the more traditional techniques/tools for producing it, even though of course they're an extremely computer-savvy group and are heavily into games and phones/apps etc, but there seems to be enormous interest among them for photochemical film. They are a more artistically informed generation than earlier ones. This is because, in a sense, knowledge has increased generally. As they age they will likely develop further discernment and 'culture'. I see the current love affair with digital cameras as not necessarily growing exponentially much further. I think it will level out and interest in film will grow. As it seems to be doing. Keep those film cameras. Plus, there's a factor that people sometimes forget in the race to higher tech. There's prestige in a 35mm feature production. There just is. That will never go away.

I don't know. I think there are some assumptions being made about "progress". Many tend to assume a progressive outlook on life ... things advance. However I think that very sentiment is becoming outdated. Evolution? Everything evolving all the time? Good God that's a boring idea. Some things are just cool. They stick around. Thank heavens.

A weak spring perhaps.

Yep that's right. I've studied the lives of hundreds of famous musicians over the years. The one thing I've learned is that the stereotypes are true, but then so are the exceptions to those stereotypes. But as you say, so few become successful 'legends' like Clapton. There have been examples of great musicians that have come from every conceivable situation - assuming a certain minimum propensity for the job (eg. having the physical attributes needed). They've been poor, rich, in between, 'coarse', cultured, extremely young, old and considered by teachers to have missed the boat (rare, but it's happened), the wrong side of town or background, the best teachers, crummy teachers but they persisted with what they had, okay teachers, no teachers at all, or hardly none, self-taught (yes even in classical music) ...everything.

Green Book is 2:1 aspect ratio.

I went to see 'Green Book' recently. Great movie!! I really enjoyed it. Shot on an Alexa mini btw, for us camera nerds ... even though I wrote recently that it doesn't matter what something's shot on! :) The white screen was 1.85 ratio. The imagery of the movie and the photography was beautiful but sadly the exhibition of the 'print' was not!! Milky 'black' borders all around, thick bars on the ends and thin black bars top and bottom. Then around all of that, the inky, true blackness of the rest of the cinema wall. I couldn't really get a clear artistic visual appraisal of the frame. Too much visual junk interfering around the edges with the presentation. Yeah, okay, I'm a bit of a perfectionist. But shouldn't we be? When will cinemas return to having solid black all around the projection frame? It can be done. And why not pay extra and install a nice curtain? Might save on having to clean food/drink thrown at the screen which occasionally happens - presumably not during the showing of the actual show as there would normally be too many witnesses. Easier to clean a curtain. Come on cinemas!

Well, I won't get into the discussion about making money for creative people. It's really tough. I won't discuss the sacrifices I've had to make as a creative person. But I can talk about what being an artist is, and the perpetual question of tools and technique. I've known and know quite a few artists, both visual (painting, etching and sculpture) and musical. I haven't known too many filmmakers - in that field I've pretty much been the only person around the place who was into film - as I grew up in a quiet, semi-rural area during my teens, when I got my start. But it's in music, where I've had a lot of interaction with other musicians, I've found a surprising level of rigidity of thought about technique, and what tools you use. Teachers are so often adamant that you have to have a certain set up of your instrument. And play with a certain technique. I always think it's bizarre. I choose the instrument set up I want ... because I want it for a good reason. It's the sound I'm after. I know the music world best (classical) and you know what I've found? The best don't care what tool you use. And you play it with your toes for all they care. It is only the final result they ever care about. The sound. The music. The rest is unimportant .. often just a chasing after vain things. With filmmaking it should be the same thing. The look. The story. Who cares if it was shot on what. So in that sense have a clear idea of what it is you are trying to produce.

Fwiw, as someone who would first choose film, I've certainly noticed the look of Alexa footage. It's the one I'd pick if I was shooting digital.

As a teenager I adored 35mm anamorphic. If I went to a picture and the feature turned out to be 1.85 I was always a little bit disappointed. 'Scope resulted in a small technical ritual out of which came a heightened theatrical effect - at least for me. One sat in the theatre munching whatever treat - if affordable on one's pocket money. Then the house lights dimmed, and on came ads, then an old cartoon possibly, and then a short movie, usually 1.85. Then the curtains rapidly closed, a moment of hush and expectation, then opened again whilst simultaneously you could hear the side black screen borders mechanically moving outwards, to widen the screen into cinemascope ratio. And on came the anamorphic main feature. Which, if it was 20th Century Fox, had of course the stirring fanfare which begins with the unforgettable drum intro. Later, the curtain closing ritual was done away with, and just the black borders moved into place whilst the screen went black. Believe me, all of this sort of thing added to the occasion. For my own filmmaking I've always aspired toward 2.20:1 and 2.39:1.

Looks like it might be down to Jaycar to buy all the components, and a crash course in extremely basic electrical builds. No word yet on any used battery packs at Cameraquip for sale.

I'm looking for the specifications for the Cinema Products Crystal motor designed for the Arriflex IIC camera. Can anyone help me out? Mine has no label or other information on it anymore (unless it's on an interior label). Here's a couple of pictures of the CP motor (neither are mine). Interestingly, I see on the side of the first it says 16-24V. Les Bosher also advises that the original Arri motor was 16V. My motor is mounted underneath the camera. https://www.ebay.com/itm/PANAVISION-ARRI-2C-35mm-flat-conversion-base-motor-adapter-unit/192779300650?hash=item2ce28aaf2a:g:jSEAAOSwvfpcLlPp https://www.ebay.com/itm/Arriflex-IIC-35mm-Cine-Camera-Hard-Front-PL-Cine-60-Motor-Base-Look-More/282248888804?hash=item41b75841e4:g:YbEAAOSwHMJYIgka Any info on amps etc would be great. By the way, in that second photo, I think you might find that's actually a PV mount.

Someone wrote it above already, but let me repeat it. Wow. That production looks wonderful. And the film image looks really wonderful too. Film at least sometimes (and maybe more often than not) seems to have a bit of an emotional edge, if I can put it that way, at least for many Digital has an emotional effect too but in a different way. Different emotion. It's not just the music, or the way it's photographed. I realize that's rather an inexact statement to make. There, I've done it - I've mentioned the film/video dichotomy/thing-amy again, and it's only February into the new year.

The film/digital thing, even on the surface of the moon!

Yep, I will be sticking with film for my own projects (as long as I can). It's just I might be getting a few gigs with a digital camera. That's if it proverbially 'goes through'. I've said this before, and last year I was asked to do some digital camerawork, but someone came in later and was more qualified. I was fine with that.

If you've only ever shot film before, and you get handed a job which, let's say, might be specified to be with a professional digital camera (for instance an Alexa), is it a difficult transition for the maybe set-in-their-ways film person - assuming you know what you're doing with film, and you have a good understanding of lighting, exposure, and with the new camera the frame size and lens choice etc? Does it depend on the camera system eg. Arri/Canon/BM. Provided you have a good understanding of how to set the camera up using the display/buttons, can you program in your familiar shutter length, ISO, and typical 'film' settings? In other words treat it like it's a film camera only you don't need to reload magazines.

I once met a guy who got the rights to an enormous 'tailings heap' as they're called, in the outback. It had been an old mine site about 70 years ago and the site had a truly gigantic dirt formation that in appearance was similar to a natural geologic structure. You could climb up it, and walk all over it and it was like a plateau. It was a small mountain. I got to know it as I used to do a lot of work in the outback. Anyway, it sat there for decades and no one cared about it. He saw potential in it and got the rights to it. He brought in a processing plant next to it, and started to put the dirt through it. He reclaimed the silver within it and made a fortune. Took my camera out there and shot a film on it. I was about 14. It featured two immensely colourful local characters from the nearby town (er, that is, a literally one petrol bowser, one pub town) who I will never forget. Rodney and Spa. I can't remember why Spa was called that. Maybe it was from "spar."

For a good price I'm sure! :D

That is an extremely helpful offer Tyler. I will be in touch again soon. Thank you. I will be looking to get a 400' or thereabouts roll of 250D or 50D if possible.

On Apollo 11 I think Buzz Aldrin filmed Neil Armstrong walking on the moon from within the LM with 16mm too.

Can anyone tell me what approximately a can of 400' weighs, complete with can? And approx. dimensions.

I've gotten in touch with Reel Good but they don't ship to Australia :( However if I send labels and documents they will do it. I wonder how that works. Contact Fedex I guess and ask. Alternative is Frame24.

Hi Dom, I've got in touch with Malcolm. Will let you know how I get on.