Jon O'Brien

I've been exporting films lately in MP4 because that's what a lot of clients want. It's not as good a look but I think it's easier to deal with for them. The only tiny bit of advice I can give you (and you probably are way past me in terms of doing this sort of thing, and know this already) is what I learned from a video on youtube titled "How I color grade 16mm film and digital" (or similar) by an Aussie cinematographer who seems to have taken it down. It had great advice in it for improving the look of film footage before exporting. I've found that the following helps. Like I said, you probably already know this little tip. In the Color section of Davinci, after grading and everything else and you're nearly ready to go to export, click on the 'Blur' button approx in the middle of the screen. It's a raindrop and triangle symbol. Up comes a box with three lots of triple columns. First three columns is labelled 'Radius'. I go to the blue column on the right with the cursor and drag down slightly. Try decreasing the value from 0.50 down to about 0.48 or maybe 0.47. Now, I'm not technical, my skills are more along the lines of 'try twiddling a few knobs here and there and see if things look better to my eye'. Well, doing this, I always seem to get a more pleasing result. Works for me, anyway. Basically it sharpens the look of the grain a bit, I think. Best of luck with it. With using Davinci I'm like someone with a pallet and a brush and just mixing the paint around and seeing if it looks better ...

You too can become a film evangelist. Hey, that's another great t-shirt slogan. "Celluloid Evangelist" (with a picture of a Bolex underneath) Someone really ought to go into business making these shirts.

All the best with this project Adrian. I already want to see this feature movie! Let us know more as things proceed.

I like the look of a film print. Digital resolution can be self-defeating past a certain point. I feel the same way with paintings, too. I prefer an impressionist look for the overall impression of the subject and the scene and the meaning, and not the painting of every single leaf, as it were. That's a conscious choice. I'm not surprised the digital camera whips film with resolution. I'd rather shoot film though.

Yes, thanks for that Karim. I enjoyed that video. Some key quotes for me: "Why don't movies look like movies anymore?" (a generalisation, as he says, but becoming increasingly true) "The short answer: a lot of people have bad taste" "... losing the talent to do this stuff .." "It's a medium for audiences." "The audience has the final say." "We want movies to look like movies!"

Is the Canon 8-64 regarded as a sharp lens these days? Is it still a highly thought of lens for S16?

Artistic framing, lighting, and art direction. The big three for potentially great cinematography. And frequent use of a locked off camera or subtle camera moves on a tripod comes fourth. The fluid head or geared head tripod is the starting base for all else. Some handheld, steadicam and crane etc shots here and there are just icing on the cake and shouldn't be overused. Lastly, great image quality. Ideally shoot on film or try for a film look/texture/effect. As many shots like a painting as possible. Sitting there looking at the image is half of the movie experience. Make it art and the audience will appreciate it even if they don't understand why. That's how I see it.

What I'm about to write will probably annoy someone. But a certain generation has, so it seems to me, grown up with the belief and/or habit that video is shot on a stills camera. You know, a handheld DSLR configuration and outlook. Like a photojournalist snap shot style from years back when the 35mm SLR film camera was king. Minimal gear, usually handheld. I personally can't figure out the fashion any other way, because the resulting footage to me often looks lazy, dull, and boring. A cheap look to the lighting. If the look of this floats their boat well that's great.

It's got visual power. It inspires me to shoot documentaries on film. Well done! I find that Super 8 and 16mm film are just so watchable. Doesn't matter if the sound isn't sync. Couldn't care really most of the time. I personally find a lot of video kind of heartless and soulless. Too clinical, too electronic, too far removed from the gritty reality of this world. I liked the ending too.

I'm not really into streaming dramatic productions. But I will have a go at a guess that might answer your question. 1. It's fashionable now to say that only the story is important. Ha! In music that's like saying it's all about the composition and the violin doesn't matter. 2. Creative minimalism. Minimal lighting. Minimal this, minimal that. Easy, lazy. Care factor low. Status factor high.

Loved the cinematography in this. I found the vampire himself a bit .. not scary but that was just me. My favourite scenes were the candle lit low light scenes. Beautiful, a memorable movie. Well done all!

True, the sprocket holes in the brief Super 8 sequences did detract from the movie. I've noticed the sprocket is used now mainly for digital footage where they want to give a fake 'film footage' look to a shot but it's a trick that doesn't work. Film doesn't need gimmicks.

Just went to see Maria. Beeeeeautiful!! Good on you Ed Lachman for shooting this on film. This movie is absolutely gorgeous. Sad, but that was Callas' life, especially at the end. Interestingly, the ads for films being released soon, just before the feature ... many of them seemed to be shot on film. Don't rembember the titles. Shoot film! You can't lose with it. It's a win all the way.

Looks great! Hope you will post a link to the footage when it's ready.

That's very helpful Larry. Thank you! So far I've handled sync by either plugging a microphone directly into the camera (usually a Canon C300 mkIII) or by using the auto sync feature on Davinci Resolve that syncs a separately recorded audio track to the camera microphone audio. It's worked very well so far. It automatically lines up the sound waves on the audio tracks. I haven't figured out how to use timecode yet with the MixPre. With the micing of the violin, when you say perpendicular to the player, does this mean that the mic in effect points approximately at the centre and front of the player's body, at instrument height, perpendicular to the shoulders? I find it can be challenging to get a sweet sound from a violin recording. And with the spacing of the two omni mics, you would have them something like 80cm apart (subject to further adjustment according to balance through the earphones etc)? Thanks for your help! I'm a film shooter from way back and just getting into audio only recently.

Hi Larry, thanks so much for this great information from someone who is expert at this. The recording hasn't taken place yet and will now be sometime early this year. It's good because I have more time to get prepared. In late January I'm doing a recording for a violin and piano duo. This one's an audition video. I'm a musician with filmmaking skills so it's a natural development to get into this area of videography. I'm getting better at audio each time I do a video. When you say omnis for the main pair, would this include small diaphragm condenser microphones? I will be using a matched pair of the Rode NT5: https://rode.com/en-us/microphones/studio-condenser/nt5?variant_sku=NT5 I have an omni capsule which can be screwed into the front of one of these mics to convert it into an omni mic. Perhaps I should get another omni capsule for the other NT5 if necessary. The players are excellent with really good instruments. I will have to make do for now with a single pair of mics. For recording classical musicians I use a Sound Devices MixPre III recorder. I also have a C stand, boom pole up to 10 feet long, Rode Stereo Bar for parallel and ORTF arrangement etc, plus some other stands and assorted gear.

Beautiful, everything in it! A very special heirloom. Really hope you win. How did you sync the footage with the audio? Well done!

Happy holidays Giray! And everyone else. Welcome to cinematography.com, Bill. Merry Christmas!

John Dykstra is a genius. Was it he who came up with the idea of using VistaVision for optical vfx for "Star Wars?" Or was this an already established practice?

Me too. Actually laughed out loud ... rare for Cinematography.com ... usually so serious here. Sounds like an exciting project and we film lovers will be very keen to see your results. I'd be inclined to keep looking for a 2x lens or adapter for your camera. I looked into getting into 16mm anamorphic but decided to stick with spherical. I suspect anamorphic 16mm in a lot of cases may look a bit soft but I'd be happy to be informed otherwise. I think anamorphic 35mm is a fantastic look and of course so is 35mm spherical.

Thanks for posting these Stephen. Helps us keep up to date with what's happening with film. Here are some quotes from DP Ed Lachman in the video and article you linked to that I especially liked. From the video: Shooting on B&W film is "an abstraction of the world that we live in." From the Kodak article: "For character-driven stories like this, I prefer to shoot on film." Film gives a visual result that "seems to breathe and feels very human." "Also, for me, film is like oil paint in the way it renders color and mixes between the colors. Digital just does not have the same depth or texture from the flat, pixel-fixated plane of the sensor."

Love it. THIS is art. Folks, if you want great music videos, all you have to do is show a bit of hard work and initiative and shoot on Super 8 or 16mm. The rest is automatically art. The art happens naturally if you shoot film. Me too as well about the memories. Started in the late 70s on Super 8. January 1979 to be exact. Hard to believe Kodak nearly disappeared. Film is pure magic.

In my opinion, resolution past a certain point becomes self-defeating in narrative (fiction) storytelling ie. "movies." Who wants to see the pores in an actor's face? Or the crumbs and microfibre wipe marks on a table that the talent are sitting at? 35mm prints and even Super 16 projected digitally are perfect for the 'artform' and 'entertainment form' we call the movies.

They can't use Hasselblad lenses? Hmm, maybe the image circle isn't big enough. Yes, I don't know why 15 perf is used for narrative productions, but who cares, as long as it's real film. I think vertical 5 perf is enough for any cinema - whether exhibited by digital or by film projector. But really, Nolan must know what he's doing.

For instance, Australia has a highly professional feature video industry. We don't make films any more.