Jon O'Brien

Manu, man of the thread!

I think point 3. was a major factor everywhere. It was the experienced DPs and directors who'd known too many sleepless nights on location worrying about the day's footage getting lost or damaged in transit, or whatever, or obsessing over whether that particular shot worked out and will they have to shoot it again. When digital came along it was an easier life for these very experienced people. And yes, some people prefer the look of digital: that clean, clinical, plastic, glassy, metallic perfection. They want a world that is like that. It's their aesthetic preference. Go to their homes and see what art is on their walls.

But it looks better, no? ?

What does a movie, shot on 2 or 3 perf, look like on the big screen when printed onto 35mm print stock via a DI and exhibited on a film projector? Does it look great? Is it almost as good a look as all-photochemical workflow and projection eg. 4 perf anamorphic? Reason I ask is that 4 perf cameras may eventually become more rare than 2 and 3 perf conversions.

Didn't Panavision build two shiny new 35mm cameras for 'The Force Awakens' and later SW pictures? If true, that speaks of an active, creative and 'industrial' commitment to film hardware in their camera division.

If my budget could stretch a bit further to a projector yes I'd be in to reversal projection in a flash. At the moment I'm aiming for things that can pay themselves back hopefully, so I'm really into photochemical scanned to digital - which I love the look of too. I actually love the latest digital technology. I look at the latest phones, tablets and tvs and think, wow, imagine my film footage showing on that absolutely wonderful device. 4K cinematography on the latest tvs I see in department stores I find amazing but am absolutely uninterested in as a medium for my own filmmaking. Most of my filmmaking in my teens/early twenties was with full photochemical workflow, editing, the lot. So great to hear the sound of a projector. Maybe one day again!

I've always liked Nikons. Good company.

One would think that modern factory digitization could only help new fabrication of analogue-era type technology (eg. cogs and wheels and physical things like that). I could imagine some tech person getting an Arri geared part with complex helical design and plonking it in a 3D scanner, analysing to the nth degree on screen to within a thousandth of an inch or less (whatever level of precision is required), dialling in the ideal steel alloy recipe needed, and computers go to work to mill the parts. Casting, too. I'm not talking a factory set up for just cameras - I mean a company with infrasructure already in place to mill whatever kind of part you want. Including film gates. Yes, they'd need to employ staff who were film camera experts. I would think this is doable, economically. Arri could do it, if it's economic to do so. Interest in film seems to be regaining some ground in the world ...

Great, will definitely check it out Phillip. Nice looking camera. Do you find the tripod thread on the base of the handle makes tripod shots a bit shaky? I notice that the Elmo can remove the handle.

Thank you for all the advice. Very helpful. Regarding Super 8, how many scanning businesses offer a digital stabilisation - is this common or a rare service, and is it expensive? I've seen digitally-stabilised Super 8 online that looked like it was shot on a pin-registered camera. The sprocket hole was moving around though. With Super 8 I would like to intercut with 16mm and possibly digital, heavily-cropped to accentuate the grain and so on. Been done before many times of course. But I still don't really like the slight vertical jitter of Super 8 which would be accentuated in a big crop.

It seems that shooting a feature on film was always an extremely expensive thing. Not much has changed - but actually, shooting on film is probably slightly more accessible now to someone new to it. The cameras became quite easy to pick up, for many years. Now it's not so easy to get a good one - unless maybe the older MOS ones. Even those seem to be rarer now than they were, on ebay. I think the digital revolution has actually helped film in many ways. The digital projection is slowly improving. It's fun to combine real film with digital work processes. Digital cameras are great as they let so many people learn high end cinematography as Tyler notes, but so many people now with cameras. I could have bought an UMP but decided to put my available budget into film gear. Don't know if it will ever pay for itself but I couldn't see much point trying to compete with all the other camera people out there with their digital cameras. As ever, I figured I may as well do what I'm interested in, which is film - even if it ended up being just 1 minute of Super 8 every year, and no more. But hopefully I will get more done in cinematography than that. But if not I don't mind, and if it doesn't work out I think I shouldn't have too many problems selling my gear. I've done a lot of research to ensure it's good gear. The digital revolution has made it affordable and I'm grateful for that.

What does the Beaulieu typically go for? Are they difficult to repair? Also, please see my earlier questions if anyone is keen to answer regarding this model. Thanks!!

Thanks for your help Shane. In general, do you find that the early 70s Super 8 cameras need some type of re-sealing done on the edges around the film compartment door, like old SLRs sometimes do (eg. the foam/flocking type plastic strips that stop light getting in have disintegrated)? Or are these cameras generally fine to jump in and start filming with (assuming all is good otherwise)?

Does this one look okay? https://www.ebay.com/itm/Exc-Elmo-Super-110-8mm-Film-Camera-with-Case-Hood-etc-from-Japan-022/382852141421?hash=item5923c4116d:g:HWoAAOSwQtdb3Tyq

Thanks! Food for thought. Do either the Beaulieu or Elmo Super 110 have any problems calibrating themselves with modern Super 8 film speeds, eg. for 50D, 200T, and the new Ektachrome? Can you just pop in the new films in these old 70s cameras and all is good with exposure (providing meter is still working fine)?

What is the Schneider Optivaron 1.8/6-66 like? Is this a good lens? Are new batteries/chargers available for this camera? Thank you for the good advice.

I always wanted to smoke a pipe. Just a little bit. You know, in a chair, on the verandah, watching the light changing...

Hi, I'm looking to get a Super 8 camera from Ebay, no more than about $300 and hopefully less. I'd like one that can do 24 fps as well as 18. I used to do a lot of Super 8 filmmaking but I'd still like to ask questions about a few things. Since most or all of the sound models, that once took the larger Super 8 sound cartridge (now discontinued) do 24 fps, is it still fine to get one of these cameras even though all I will ever be doing is shooting (obviously) with the smaller silent cartridge? Thought I better check to make sure. Also, why are the Canon Super 8 cameras on Ebay generally the most expensive, say compared with Bell & Howell? Can anyone recommend a dependable, good model for the price range I'm looking for? I don't mind the brand. Would prefer internal automatic exposure. Good zoom lens would be nice - doesn't have to be powered zoom.

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."