Jon O'Brien

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.

Looks excellent Diego. An Arriflex IIB? A truly professional camera. George Lucas used one for some shots that made it into the original Star Wars movie. Either that or a IIC. Some shots in the opening sequences aboard the 'hammerhead' blockade runner carrying Princess Leia, and the shot of the Bantha walking off on Tatooine with a Tusken Raider on its back. There may have been other shots too. Used in lots of amazing movies.

... that ...... thing. It's the video look. It's just a thing film shooters notice about video.

Hi Larry, I film classical music performances with a Canon C300 or Sony FS7. I've also used a Sony A7III as B cam. If I was looking for a set up like you describe, small and portable and not too pricey, but with the best look (you already have the audio well taken care of) I think I personally would be inclined to look for a DSLR style mirrorless or small 4K camcorder by Canon or Sony, but that's just my preference. Best wishes with what you end up getting.

Pro8mm at Burbank CA will tell you if they can do it. They're good communicators. I don't know if that's too far away for you.

I mean to say I carefully dismantled the camera, screw by careful screw, in a most methodical manner, intent on scientific enquiry. Haha.

Yes that could be it. Maybe it's simply the edge of the internal filter that hasn't fully swung out of the way. Especially if the internal filter is mounted in a metal frame that surrounds it, as the left hand side is completely dark and doesn't look like an orange or ND filter gel. So ... I'd try engaging and disengaging the tungsten control switch (if there's a switch on the side of the camera with sunlight and electric bulb symbols) or engaging the filter key if there is one. You can look down into the lens, with a good light, as you engage and disengage the orange filter behind the lens, and see it move across. If the camera has manual exposure contol you can also look into the lens as you rotate the small wheel and see the aperture blades open and close. Sometimes you have to get the angle of light just right. Good luck! The other day I pulled apart a broken, completely-unusable Super 8 camera that I bought for almost nothing on ebay to see how these things work and how they can be repaired if needed. This one had a broken drive shaft that turned the film take up wheel in the film compartment, so it was beyond repair. I'm going to sell some cameras so have to learn how to pick good ones. You can learn a lot about camera repair this way. If there's a problem with the internal filter not being completely retracted it's risky but possible to open up the camera and physically try to push the filter out of the way or at least see what the problem might be. I'd be cautious about removing the filter though as it may upset the internals of the camera. Sometimes small ND filters are attached to the mechanism that controls the orange filter. The orange filter was put in the camera in the first place because Kodachrome reversal film required an orange filter for daylight filming. With negative film, as is commonly used now, you don't need that filter to be engaged. So it normally should rest in a position completely swung out of the way of the light path as it enters the film gate.

Hmm, I've not seen this before. I assume it's in all the images? Possibly one of the blades of a two-bladed aperture (common on Super 8 cameras) stuck in the closed position, throwing the optical centre off. Or the lens has been bumped in its mounting attachment. Doesn't seem to look like a shutter problem as far as I can see. It would be best to see some actual footage.

Or even better, both a PL and a C mount version. That would greatly expand the usefulness of such lenses.

Sirui has released a 1.6 x squeeze anamorphic lens that would be great if it could be used on a C mount vintage 16mm camera. Imagine that. But every single mount it comes in, L, X, Z, RF, and DL is unusable on a C mount with an adapter. If they could design a similar lens for Nikon F mount that would be truly amazing as such a lens could then be used on old standard 16mm cameras with a low-cost and easily obtainable Nikon F to C adapter. https://store.sirui.com/en-au/products/sirui-saturn-35mm-full-frame-carbon-fiber-anamorphic-lens?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=jojo-kol-vuhlandes&utm_campaign=saturn35&ppl_length=1&ppl_time=1697937506542

In the creative arts much of what's called minimalism is actually a form of laziness. You see it in music performance too. Violinists who use the latest high tech pickups, blue tooth, and light, easy to set up speakers and their sound goes through a digital system that imparts an automatic reverb and whatever else into the sound - sometimes almost a sampling effect. You still have to play in tune and smoothly for good results but it means you literally don't have to work so hard (physically) for a good sound and projection. But it comes out looking and sounding lazy and low-tone -- and it is. I feel that in video, too, going with digital stabilizer and gimbal all the time, and too much slow-mo, with light, easy gear ... it just comes across as a lazy way to film. Something's missing in it. It lacks conviction and soul somehow. Ultimately, it affects just how much 'art' there is in it.

At the time, I actually didn't mind the look of Attack of the Clones in the cinema. It was no doubt shown on a film print. It's funny but the very beginning of the digital revolution started very quietly and without much fanfare at all. It just slipped into place and there it was. Didn't really cause a ripple. Then next thing big changes started happening in the film industry in Australia. Then cinemas lost their film projectors ... As recounted here a few years back, I was literally nearly given the two enormous and virtually brand-new cinema film projectors (capable of both 35mm and 70mm projection) from the local cinema I frequented, by a local projectionist who got too old to look after his prized possessions. But it wasn't to be. They were both just too big, and what was I going to do with them anyway.

There does seem to be a view that sticks are old school. Hand-held all the time, big monitor on top, sometimes a gimbal, is the new fashion. It's called minimalism I think. Shoot in natural light most of the time and use minimal gear. It's a style that works but I think a tripod can help get even better results. They're heavy to lug around and could potentially do your back in on a busy and long day especially the older you get but I feel it generally gives a more professional look than shot after shot of hand-held and subtly 'floaty' or tracking shots for no particular reason other than to impart a certain look that's supposed to be more impressive. The other fashion is for a lot of slow motion. It's so easy to do but gives a wedding video an overly sentimental feel. To all those who say a tripod is too old school I say give the tripod a try, work a bit harder on the shoot, and you might end up with something that has a chance of not looking like kitsch. If people laugh at you for turning up with so much gear (the average person out there seems to think all video can now be shot just on hand-held phone cameras) don't worry about it. Just get the shots you need.

All figured out now. That little ring with the tab on it, it does have a bit of free play from side to side, about 1 or 2 cm of travel, while in non-macro setting. It's just that I had to sort of gently 'force' it further to the right (with lens pointing away from me) and then it suddenly yielded and entered the 'macro' zone. And it's focusing very close indeed now. Yay.