Jon O'Brien

The company I work for used a Panasonic Varicam in 2007/2008. I saw a film they made projected in a cinema and it looked pretty good to me. 1080p I believe.

In the original post, Tim mentions a high speed gate for the 2C camera. I'm aware that high speed motors are still available for the 2C, but in what way does the high speed gate differ to the standard gate? Also, does anyone know what a used CE crystal motor might go for these days?

On professional, big productions, fully financed and all that, what sort of money does the camera operator make compared to the DP? Or is that like asking how long is a piece of string? But there must be some general pay grade I suppose.

As they used to say in Australia in the bush, and in the city too: "too right!" I've been to that spot where Kelly and his gang put on their home-made armour and faced the police, with my dad, some years ago. We checked it out. It's just an unassuming scrubby block, totally nondescript. Maybe one day I will make yet another movie on Kelly. Here's John Jarratt as Kelly, in a fine made-for-tv production from the 80s. Shot on 16mm. And yep that vistavision makes an appearance towards the end. I've always said Aussies are innovators.

Ah, I might have figured it out. Many of these filmmakers I've been reading possibly shoot on DSLRs. If they shoot footage on full-frame cameras it might be the case (but I just don't know) that slight darkening in corners is more apparent in digital cinematography. At any rate, I've just read some reviews of still lenses in digital photography that specifically looks into vignetting, and the writers mention - including in the comments below section (always worth reading) - that smaller format cameras, eg. DX sensor cameras, get rid of any apparent vignetting concerns with many lenses. DX or APS-C is close to academy 35mm frame size.

Whoops, I've just remembered seeing a couple of pictures of George Lucas with a Pan-Arri 2C on Star Wars (IV), with a huge Panavision anamorphic lens on it. Perhaps this was possible because of the lens mount modification to PV. I've examined one of these closely and indeed the PV mount protrudes a good distance out from the 2C hard front due to the greater Panavision FFD. But for instance with Nikon lenses the lens is sunk deeper into the camera (Nikon FFD of 46.5mm). But a reputable source said that these lenses can work well with the 2C. Just have to watch that mirror.

Some more explanation. Specifically, I've read that faint vignetting is much more noticeable when using photography lenses in filmmaking. But on the other hand the cine 35mm frame - especially academy width - is already significantly smaller than the 135 format 35mm SLR camera frame (approx. 36 x 24mm). So I can't see why vignetting would be much of a problem. Yet the 'only ever use cine lenses' camp often discuss the vignetting. Thus my question.

We Australians of course have recourse to the Ned Kelly helmet.

Joe Dunton's exposition of Kubrick's favoured lenses for his 2C is very interesting. I notice that his lenses are somewhat narrow in build - and I think this might have been a necessary factor in lens choice for the 2C camera. I don't think I've ever seen a picture of a 2C with a large-barrelled (for want of a better term), 'fat' cine lens sticking out the end of it - like something of the girth of a Rokinon Xeen for instance (one make of lens I've done some research on) or bigger. I think the mirror housing might get in the way. Indeed this is what Tyler said recently on another thread. Specifically for the 2C, or IIC if you like to write it like that, are these narrower-bodied lenses more prone to faint vignetting (not hard vignetting, I mean very slight underexposure in the corners of frame)? Now don't get me wrong I'm not suggesting Kubrick would have chosen lenses that vignetted. He was a master. What I'm on about is that I have read (and listened to) quite a bit of advice on the internet about how photography lenses are really not very good for use on cinema cameras. Yep, I've looked carefully into issues of breathing, colour matching, aberration, distortion of wides on cheaper lenses, filter/mattebox issues etc, follow focus/short focus throw and reverse focus, cheap plastic components especially in later AF lenses with sloppy travel, FFD and depth of focus and questions of mount type, and so on ... but the one thing that mainly gets me doubting the use of (many) photography lenses is potential for slight vignetting effects. Specifically on a 2C. I know that there's nothing distinctive about the film gate about this camera - I merely mean that 'thicker' lenses simply may not fit on it. Can anyone direct me to some good information on this subject. I've looked but so far haven't found much expert knowledge on it. There is reams of advice on the internet about how cine lenses are the way to go for filmmakers. I'm not talking about that. That bit is clear. I accept that for a professional production crew it is the only way to go because of so many issues such as focus pulling, breathing etc etc etc.. I'm talking about low budget independent filmmaking and I'm not interested in debating why a low budget filmmaker would even consider shooting on film, let alone 35mm. You will just have to accept that that's the way I would like to go about doing my filmmaking - if I can. Thank you for any advice on this!

All very true. In my defence, I was sort of trying to make a slight joke.

Oh, I know. I should have been more clear. I meant new ones. As in, first one for 2019 ... and shown at the local cinema.

And as Robin said earlier, I think there's a general tendency to want to defend our 'pet' format that we have invested money and experience and research time into. I do it. But really we should all be open to many different ways to film a movie. Any format that suits that production. When's the first feature movie on Super 8 coming out? I promise, if it's good I will go and see it.

'The Force Awakens' to me looked very similar to 'Rogue One' on the big screen just going by things like cleanliness/grainlessness of image. However, when I went to see 'Darkest Hour' at the cinema it was as clear as a bell to me that the movie had been shot on a digital camera. The movie looked good, but it was easy to see it wasn't shot on film. I usually sit a fair way back from the screen. One thing I don't understand with S16 destined for the cinema is reading about creative decisions that seek to increase grain, but that's what the makers want so fair enough. I think I'd try and increase the 'film' look of 4 perf anamorphic (eg. with grain) but with S16 on the big screen I think I'd be bending over backwards to try to reduce it. When grain on the big screen starts to take on a darkish noise somewhat similar to coffee grains it's gone too far in my opinion and typical 70s/80s photochemical 35mm prints didn't really look like that (in my opinion). So in S16 I'd try to reduce that, and from what I've read I believe it can be done. I base this all of course as an audience member who likes the look of film. I have a background in art and come from a family of several painters, so tend to have strong opinions on the look of a work of visual art which can get me into in-depth conversation at times. People can get offended. I often come away thinking, oh just like what you want and I will like what I want. Or I keep my opinion to myself - a trick I've learned. But here, I'm genuinely interested to learn about the technique behind filmmaking as I get more into it myself. My outlook is that 2 and 3 perf is an interesting possibility, nestled in between S16 and anamorphic 35mm, for films destined for the big screen. Like everyone else I'm on a journey of learning.

It's a great look, but aspiring S16 filmmakers should go and see S16-shot films in the cinema as soon as possible to get a clear picture of what they look like in the initial exhibition (if they perhaps aspire to cinema release productions in any way, shape or form). Because I think it's fair to say S16 films look grainier on the big screen than on tv screens and monitors. Unless measures are made to reduce grain. And if that's the look you want, grainy or less so, then that's good. You have a clearer vision of what it is you're trying to achieve. Which is the path an artist walks.

I'm selling my Bolex Rex 5 Super 16 camera, and it comes with a Switar 16mm Rx lens. Total package AUD$1500 plus shipping. I will get around to posting photos soon, plus hopefully a link to a 2 minute film clip shot on it. The camera and lens are in great condition. The spring is strong, the image looks great and stable. The lens is completely fine, no fungus, fogging, or scratches. Iris and focus are perfect and rings turn smoothly. C mount to Nikon mount adapter included. I've had no problems with this camera and lens. Totally ready to start shooting with. Reason I'm selling is I'm changing to Arri and I can only afford one system. I'm in Queensland, Australia.

Great looking movie.

I think in film origination there's The Great Three that are right up there with keeping that 'real film look': Super 16, 2 perf, and 3 perf. Choose the one you're happiest working with. 4 perf Scope looks amazing too of course, though these days it's more difficult to tell even on the cinema screen if it's shot on film, or on an Alexa.

I'm contemplating getting a tripod with Mitchell top, since I've found a good fluid head that supports up to 30 lbs, which fits to a Mitchell. Are there any particular drawbacks to a Mitchell mount tripod? Any opinions on Ronford Baker heads and tripods? Thanks for any advice. This is for an Arri IIC.

Ads with a bit of pizzazz and tongue in cheek humour. Bring 'em back. And in arty, vhs-look, 1.33 too. Can someone digitally render in an animation of a camera over the soap box?

Good advice Stuart and Brenton. Thanks!

What about using Nikkor (Nikon) lenses on film cameras? There are some interesting older threads on this topic. Anyone encountered any problems using these lenses in cinematography? Yes, it's true they aren't cine lenses and you can't use a follow focus on them, and they probably breathe and so on too. Also, they just won't fit on some cameras such as Arri without extensive camera modification. But aside from all that, and assuming one could get the modification done, how good are they as a low-cost lens in filmmaking? Any digital users also like to comment?

Some time spent at a rental house might be the answer, and talking with the person there who knows film cameras best. And renting before buying anything.

Regarding 35mm, I think something that would be really interesting in terms of seeing movies projected on the big screen in the cinema as a DCP, is finding interesting lenses and optical techniques for making more anamorphic-looking bokeh and shallower dof with 2 perf. In other words using 2 perf but trying as much as possible to get a vintage 70s type look of a scope 35mm print seen at the local cinema. Pushing the grain out more too/cropping more in post to make grain more obvious, and that type of thing. With S16 I'd be trying to decrease grain as much as possible and try to make it look as much like 35mm as possible. Shoot 50D if necessary. Of course it's still going to be very grainy though, but a bit less so.

Thanks guys, much appreciated. I wonder how the Sigma 18-35 would go on an Arri 35III. Filmmaking can be like chess - heaven help you if you make a wrong move.

Can anyone advise if these lenses might work well on an Arri 35-III adapted to 2 perf? https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1185218-REG/rokinon_xeen_24_50_85mm.html Thank you.