Jon O'Brien

Videography has gotten too slick-looking and I find it boring. All the videographers shoot with the same handheld or slow mo style as each other, the same editing, etc, and everyone thinks it's all so terribly impressive. Ho hum. I too am thinking of going back just to film. Then again for concert videos it's good to have a camera that's very cheap to shoot an hour's or more worth of footage, and records audio. But all the slick gimbal DSLR shots? Not me. Hire the other guy. You won't have trouble finding a dude to shoot your video as absolutely everyone knows some young person with a Sony on a gimbal. And they will probably do it for free.

Merry Christmas Tassanee! I have a Super 16-modified Bolex Rex 5 camera, with Nikon adapter mount that screws into the C mount on the turret. I've used a Nikkor 50mm f1.8mm lens to great effect with this camera. The thing about reflex Bolex cameras is that they have a prism, between the film gate and the back of the lens, that deflects some of the light coming in from the lens into the reflex viewfinder. This prism, located only a few mm inside the front of the camera, unfortunately alters the optics of the light getting to the film. Thus Bolex reflex cameras need special "Rx" lenses that are made for these cameras, which can compensate for the effect of the prism. However, there are ways to get around this if using non-Rx lenses. One way is to film with the non-Rx lens stopped down to at least f4. Another way is to use lenses 50mm or longer in focal length. So a Nikkor 50mm lens should be fine to use but of course for 16mm it is a telephoto lens. But you will need to shoot tests, of course, to be sure. I've found that the look of the Nikkor lens for a 16mm Bolex is very good. All the best with your EL!

This topic is for narrative productions, sure, where there's usually a lot of artistic input as to how a shot looks. But in videography I find myself stressing about clipping parts of shots but it's often unavoidable. In filming a violin and piano performance recently for instance the pianist had a stand light illuminating her music. But because the scene was filmed in natural room light most of the piano score in front of the pianist was clipped. I just couldn't avoid that, given the necessities of camera placement and needing the pianist in the shot as this was specifically requested. But I don't like the clipped look. If I'd gotten rid of the clipping the whole shot would have been underexposed. Is there any other way around this? Videography is often not easy to get a good look.

I will do my best to advise. I'm certainly no Bolex expert, but I would look at this source of information if you haven't already: http://www.bolexcollector.com/articles/07_05_11.html As far as I'm aware this website has a reasonably good reputation. Just make sure that the serial number is, according to the bolexcollector site, above 76471. See the footnote "S/N 76471 (H16 only)" I'd go a little above that serial number. Eg. choose a higher number to make sure you get a single sprocket camera. Make sure the camera runs cleanly and makes a nice regular whirring sound. It's a precision machine and should sound like one. Ask the seller how long a single wind of film lasts at 24 fps. I'm pretty sure it's ideally supposed to be about 28 or 29 seconds. Don't run the camera faster than 24 fps without film in it. Does the film speed sound constant, up to just before the spring runs out? Is the lens clear? Is there fog or fungus? Also crucially, do the focus and aperture rings turn easily and do the aperture blades look fine? Look down into the lens from both ends if you can. Best wishes Jordan and I hope you get a good camera! I've found Bolex cameras to be pretty dependable and steady, so far. I've tried a few. I used to feel a bit frustrated when old salts would say to me "just get a camera that works and start filming. Don't stress about getting the perfect camera or one that ticks most or all the boxes for what you want or desire. The main thing is just start filming." Guess what. They were right. I now say the same to people contemplating getting a film camera. Get anything that works, and start filming.

It's easy to say for me, as I've had my fill of Super 16 and can sit back and bask in that glow of at least having had an opportunity of trying it several times, but I must admit I agree with Frank, above. I'd not bother with it, and just have a simpler life with regular 16mm. That is, unless you are seriously shooting a feature movie, destined for cinemas, and you have to shoot it on 16mm, or bust. Only then can I see a justification for the extra fuss of Super 16. These days regular 16mm with a high quality scan looks wonderful.

Hi Deniz, Thanks for your comment on what I wrote. It's good and interesting to get feedback that is fair and reasoned. I think a lot of people will love the look of this picture. One of my brothers in law said to me the other day he loves a certain videographer's work because his shots look "so clean." I think he was referring to that ultra clean video look so many seem to love. I'm not into it myself but that's just me. I like a grungy arty look. Don't even know why! Something to do with painting I think. My mum was a painter and steered clear of a 'clean' look so maybe that's got something to do with it. Anyway, I wish the filmmakers every success with this new movie. And hope that other big names in filmmaking continue to make their feature movies on film, to help keep Kodak and real film alive ? Jon

They say if you can't say anything good then say nothing at all. But I thought I'd say that this is the first example I can think of in my life where a trailer put me off seeing the film. I don't think I will go to see it. I love going to the movies and keep looking for good opportunities to go to the cinema. I don't like the look of the movie from what I saw in the trailer. It looked like a made for TV video on the trailer. I like the gritty look of film for period pictures. To each their own. I think Scott should go back to film for his productions but that's his choice. I'm sure it's a very well made movie, with great acting and camera work and everything.

I've got a K100 turret model that isn't working. You can wind the spring but nothing happens when you press the run button. Not a sound. Totally jammed but the spring itself seems to be fine. I read somewhere that problems like this usually mean the advance claw or shutter are somehow jammed. I'd be really interested Mike to hear how you go with repairing your non-working K100s. If I can repair mine, I will post here what I did and what I learned.

I think the new Kodak Super 8 camera will sell enough for it to be a success. Get off Kodak's back those people saying negative things. It's okay if you don't like Super 8 but accept that a lot of people know it's characteristics and love it. Many will love the new camera and it matters not one bit if they are hobbyists or pros or anything in between. Speaking of 2-perf, it would look fantastic cropped to 2.1:1 or 2.20:1 for a feature movie. Just enough grain on the big screen to see it's film/give it slight bit of texture and grit. That etched look, sharp as a tack. A la Once Upon a Time in the West. From what I've seen on the big screen 3-perf has a slightly more pristine look closer to digital in appearance. But that's perfect for some things. There doesn't need to be a 'war' between the 3-perf and the 2-perf. That's just silly.

I'm sure Super 8 can be made to look really sharp and impressive, getting somewhat towards a 16mm look, but I'm not really interested in it for that. I specifically got back into Super 8 because I wanted a format that looks obviously like film when viewed on a phone screen. It might surprise some, but 50D 16mm can look very clean and pristine on a phone screen. On a computer screen you can see that 16mm is actually scanned film, but on a phone only Super 8 looks very obviously like real film. Most young people tend to watch videos on their phones, and many of them really love Super 8. That's why I'm back into it. They're the ones getting married, and hopefully wanting wedding films (if they can afford them). Otherwise, I'd shoot 16mm and 35mm only. Lately I'm thinking even 16mm looks too grainy for a short film or feature movie, and ideally I'd shoot only 35mm 2-perf. Maybe one day.

I met John Seale the other day. He was in Brisbane for a talk. I went up to him after the talk and spoke with him briefly, asking him how he shot 'Witness' and other questions. A very down to earth and likeable man. I shook his hand when it was time for him to leave. Wow.

That's very true. A lot of people whinge about the cost of shooting film but it's not impossibly expensive. If you want something enough you will find a way to do it. I think Karim is right. This new camera could really oil the wheels of interest out there, in a whole new generation of filmmakers. It will cause a stir, one way or the other. It will generate new interest and new creativity. Well done Kodak!

Or use a Zacuto EVF, if that's possible, as Giray said.

I'm completely with you on this, Tyler. Thank you for clearly articulating a point that continually surprises me when I regularly see videography 'experts' on You Tube showing themselves shooting footage outside in daylight with no viewfinder and just a monitor screen. I don't get it. Is this maybe some sort of 'hipster' fashion or something? Is it all in the 'look' and the 'image' of the young pro DP at work or something, looking super cool with all the fashionable gear? How are you supposed to focus, and even get a proper sense of what you're shooting, not to mention the exposure, by looking at a monitor screen out in daylight? I can't do it. I need a viewfinder. Especially in Australia with our bright sunlight. It's a great looking new Super 8 camera and all the best to Kodak, I wish them success with it. Hopefully I might get to use one some day. I will have to use some kind of shade for the monitor screen outdoors though. I do agree with Giray about Super 8 optical viewfinders. Many I find to be pretty poor to try and focus with. The best I've seen is the Beaulieu 4008 with its ground glass screen that can be retracted, and the next runners up I've used, not as good but tolerable are the Canon 1014XL-S and Canon 814 Autozoom. The Beaulieu is the best by a mile. Your mileage may vary of course.

Since you're broke can you sell that lens and some other stuff and maybe pick up a Nikkor F mount or an old but still okay Rx lens on Ebay? I use a Nikkor 50mm on a reflex Bolex with a low-cost C mount adapter. Sure, it's basically a telephoto lens but the images on the Bolex look beautiful. Or just stop it down. All the best with it and good luck. With filmmaking you just have to wait sometimes until everything comes together. But with patience it will. Shoot film!!

As far as I know Techniscope 2-perf was a modification made to existing 4-perf cameras, though I've heard that there were 2-perf movements made for some cameras and that Panavision can also supply some of their 35mm cameras with 2-perf movements. Other than that I don't think there were any Techniscope 2-perf cameras that came out of any factory at any time but I could be wrong. I'm sorry but I don't know about Mitchell so don't bother reading on if you're not interested in alternatives. The best bet for 2-perf these days for low-budget is to get someone to modify a 4-perf MOS Arri IIC or 35-3. Bruce McNaughton at Aranda in Australia did two 2-perf conversions for me, on a IIC and a 35-3, but he has retired now and sold all his machining shop equipment. I think there's someone possibly in Munich who is doing 2-perf conversions now. Uli who posts on cinematography.com has gotten him to do some work. Both the IIC and 35-3 can also have their lens mounts changed to Nikon F if this is of any interest to you or anyone else. The FFD works out fine with these two models of cameras. PL lenses are much more expensive to get hold of even if you hire. I'm sure Nikkors will give pretty good looking footage and I soon hope to do some tests to know for sure. Focus pullers might not like them.

That's right, I think they assumed that "Full frame" was the same sensor size (approximately) as what had been traditionally used for 35mm motion picture film frames in feature production. The great majority of feature movies shot on 35mm, since the beginning of motion pictures, were filmed with a frame size closer to what we today call APS-C or S35. It's fine to call it Full Frame for convenience since everyone now knows what it means. Historically, though, this sensor size is not the same or similar dimensions to the traditional 'full frame' 35mm cine frame that was by far the most common choice for feature movie production for decades. Sure, the 35mm film frame for vertical camera movement came in different sizes too, but the traditional cine frame was always significantly smaller than what today is called Full frame. The only problem in all this is that sometimes it can confuse people. So it's best to know your history. Many seem to think that Full frame is 'full professional', and anything less than that is, well, less than that, where as, just like speaking of how many "K's" a camera is (4K, 6K, 8K etc), it ain't necessarily so. There's certainly nothing wrong with Full frame. It's great. But Arri obviously thinks that S35 is still a good sensor size for projects of the highest professional quality, since not all that long ago they brought out the new Arri Alexa 35, which is a truly great camera.

I like to use the name Vista or something similar for Full frame when it's used in a filmmaking context. "Full frame" really refers to the 135 35mm film format which was a still photography format popularized by makers such as Nikon with their SLRs in the late 1960s or thereabouts, where the film went through the camera horizontally, resulting in the larger 135 format sized frame. Originally of course 35mm film was intended for motion pictures, with a vertical motion through the camera, with the same or somewhat similar frame size to what we now call S35. So "Full frame" is a much bigger frame area than 35mm movie film frames as originally intended. Yep, Vistavision movie cameras were also introduced, with a horizontal travel through the camera, but were never used to such an extent as the traditional vertical film travel cameras. Then when Canon's line of 'Full frame' DSLR still cameras came out with very impressive video capability filmmakers started talking about Full frame as if it was the best thing and you had to have it, and APS-C or Super 35 sensors were more for amateur use. This feeling seems to still linger amongst filmmakers and the other day I was told by a video rental house that full frame is the real deal and Super35 sensors are somehow not as good and not as professional. It doesn't really matter though. It's all a bit vain in many ways. Use what you want and each 'system' or size of sensor has its particular benefits and disadvantages. But I tend to think that filmmakers ought to stand proud, and not use still photography names or terms for things where a more exact and more appropriate filmmaking word or term already exists.

I'm also not an expert but it looks quite fake to me. Why is the airliner making a large banking turn in the air? Is it trying to evade the orbs? Not likely? If the aliens exist I wish they'd stop forever being so boring and unoriginal. Always the same games and deception. Around and around in circles we go, down through history. They used to call them leprechauns in Ireland. Boring little grays they call them now.

G'day Gregg, I agree, it looks pretty. I wasn't criticising. I just got the impression that maybe a tad sharper look at what the lens can do online would be great. As in, I'm sure the lens and everything looks great, but that perhaps a sharper looking scan or upload would be very helpful for an accurate idea of what's possible with these new lenses. That's what I meant about the grain. It's just a measure of how sharp an online sample of footage really is -- at least, in theory what it would ideally be. Not wanting to upset anyone of course, step on any toes, haha, quite used to that here from years back. I'm not being critical at all. In fact I'm quite supportive and positive about the new lenses. Sometimes perhaps you are a bit oversensitive, overcritical, or overprotective when there's no cause to be? Peace.

Finally, one other tip. If it can be afforded, a Super 8 camera to film 'on the road' scenes between gigs might really add some human interest to videos. You know, setting up, someone getting the fiddle or clarinet out backstage for a quick warmup next to the stage risers, etc .... But depends what look you are going for. That's it from me for now ?

Also, I prefer the 'Canon look' to the Sony look. But then, some people say it can all be changed in post to whatever look you like. I remain unconvinced however. It's just less work if you have something in camera that already looks good as soon as you do a light bit of tweaking in colour grading, whack a LUT on it, etc.

No worries Larry, my advice probably wasn't much help to you. Actually I'd say you will soon have enough experience to be able to come back here, and let me and everyone else interested in this sort of filming know what works best and how to best go about doing it. I've got no experience yet with multicam control (I'm a bit of a backwoods filmer, maybe -- I like to do everything manually as much as I can), however I do hope to get into this sort of thing a little bit further along the track. I'm genuinely interested to know more about how to do this sort of filming, so I hope you can let us know what you learn. I have a background in film cameras and only got into digital videography not all that long ago, and as a musician myself I've been busy with that lately, so ... I'm on a journey of discovery like you. Hopefully someone else can chime in here and give you the exact advice you are looking for. For the lighting in a church, I myself would probably go and hire, say, two or three large Aputure 600 lights, with diffusers, and see how that worked. I don't know much about the cameras you mentioned. One thing though, I've found that often the best person to advise you is yourself. You need to do your research (which of course you're doing) then just make a choice and start filming. You will quickly learn. So much equipment is so good these days that really nearly anything with a good reputation will be fine.

Exciting possibilities with these new lenses. On 16mm I feel you really need every bit of sharpness you can muster so it's good to know people are saying they're sharp. I think though I'd probably be inclined to still shoot spherical and crop in post if I wanted, say, 'scope widescreen on Super 16. It would be great to see some S16 footage shot on these lenses that is sharp enough to see the film grain.

Might have to go and see The Wager. Looks pretty epic.