Jon O'Brien

How would S16 anamorphic (1.3x) depth of field compare with 2 perf 35mm, generally? Would it be easier to achieve a shallower dof with one or the other?

I love the WWI story, I read somewhere, of how the Germans and British came up out of the trenches one Christmas morning, smoked cigarettes, swapped some food, sung songs together, and ended up kicking a football around I think. Then a handshake and back into the trenches. Crazy and sad but also hopeful in a way. Haven't seen the above film yet but will.

It might help if they eventually release a 2nd version of the camera, with optical viewfinder. But I will be sticking with 16mm I think, so it doesn't affect me.

Interesting comment from Manu Delpech, post #20 in 'S16 Anamorphic - On a budget', https://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=74665&hl=%2Bhawk+%2Bv-lite+%2Blens&do=findComment&comment=478978 "Anecdotal, but The Wall (Doug Liman) that takes place entirely in the Iraqi desert, entirely shot on super 16 anamorphic with the Hawk V-Lite 1.3x and the 50D stock looks good although it is very soft, I actually found it softer than The Wrestler, or the super 16 portion in Steve Jobs or some of the best super 16 footage out there with a 2:40 extraction. Close-ups can look surprisingly good, and the 50D (blown up on a big screen) yields minimal grain but some medium close-ups and the wides really look soft." I haven't seen many S16 productions at the cinema, so will start doing it, and begin with 'The Old Man and the Gun'. Saw Mother last year for that reason but that was cropped spherical, was maybe just a bit too grainy I thought, and was almost entirely shot indoors. I'd like to compare results in the theater with the Hawk v-lite anamorphics. How do you keep track of all the latest cinema releases shot on S16 - is the best way to keep checking the Kodak site?

Thanks Dom. Anyone know what a 416 generally goes for second hand? I think around 11K USD. A 416 would hold its value well.

An Arri or Aaton camera, eg. SR3 or XTR, and shoot 1.3x anamorphic sounds the way to go for me (maybe own the camera and hire the lenses). Which of these cameras can you fit with anamorphic viewfinder, and is S16 a more difficult shoot for the cinematographer in any way, over say 35mm or Arri Alexa? Those camera prices seem very appealing, considering they are for a pro level camera. What is the availability for the best s16 lenses? The more I think about it, S16 is the way to go, if digitally distributed, all the way from short films up to feature length. Only go to 35mm for something that really needs the extra definition. And 65mm if seeking a 'real film' distribution (forgive me for occasionally thinking big) - not likely though. Mark, best wishes for your S16 project! Hope it goes ahead.

Yes, sorry, I didn't read your post carefully enough. I should have known that. Ultra 16 is really an amateur format. Does anyone know if there is any discernible registration problem with Bolex cameras when projected digitally on a big screen, compared with Arri 16mm cameras? I know Bolex don't have pin registration. I'm thinking of getting an SBM as my personal camera, for making short films with MOS and dubbing in post, and hiring Arri cameras for sync sound shooting further down the track.

I'm wondering if I might actually find it easier to attract funding for a film project if I shoot on 35mm, as it would be resurrecting this film stock here. No one in Australia shoots on 35mm any more that I know of. The government is willing to support filmmakers for some projects, and I already have a camera. Still, S-16 is a very attractive option as I like the look of film grain. I did see Mother at the cinema, purely for the fact it was shot on S-16. I didn't realise it was shot on Ultra 16. I liked the look of it very much, however it was shot with many close-ups, so really worked well for 16mm.

I might email Volker in Germany, who sometimes posts here. He modified a projector to S-16 and enjoys wonderful home movies. If I can find out details will post on this thread. Thanks guys for very worthwhile advice above. I'd like to be up and running with a projector soon, in time for Ektachrome release here (assuming processing etc is going to be fine in Australia). But my main longterm aim is to continue shooting Vision 3 and release digital movies shot on 16mm (and later 35mm if I can). The projection idea is just to satisfy a craving to see and experience real film "with my own eyes," (... to quote Darth Vader). Considering the apparent huge cost of the best S-16 anamorphic glass, I wonder if for a short film 35mm spherical, cropped to 2.40:1, might actually work out cheaper, or about the same production cost.

A big ego and a big heart wouldn't hurt, either, for a film director. Hard to drive a good project to completion without both, surely. And balls (that is not a sexist comment).

Passion in any field can lead to talent, with hard work, intelligence, wisdom, good teaching (in some form or other), opportunity, and (crucially) opportunity taken/chosen. Than add tenaciousness. A close friend is a music teacher and he says that, to his continual surprise, the kids who go on to be a pro are not usually the "talented" students. It's the ones who are passionately fond of music and just stick with it.

Inspire the actors so they feel their association with you is making them better performers. Even in your earliest, smallest films. Sometimes that can mean being tough on them, but not in a way that makes them feel you are telling them how to act. They will rightly think you are worth working with. Most great directors are interesting people with a lot of knowledge of art and culture, and are natural leaders in creative production, though it mightn't be obvious at all. Some of the loudest hot shots are the least talented.

It seems to me that these days with digital distribution and projection, the low grain of Vision 3 film stocks, and the great cameras and equipment still available for rent today, that Super 16 is becoming even more interesting than it was before as a medium for photographing movies designed to be shown at a large theater. I thought why not a broadly-themed thread that discusses many points about Super 16. What movies have you seen at the cinema that were shot on this gauge and looked great? Is grain a problem to contemporary theater audiences/online streaming/DVD blue ray audiences? How would anamorphic 2.35:1 Super 16 look at the theater compared to the same aspect ratio photographed with spherical, but cropped in post? I know that the spherical lenses have a reputation for being sharper - so which really, in the final analysis, would be sharper? I suspect anamorphic would be significantly sharper. Is 16mm going to be able to deliver enough sharpness of image for an outdoors movie with a lot of sweeping shots of large landscapes? And finally, projection, for home movie use. Does anyone have any advice/anecdotes regarding converting a projector to Super 16, or for converting a projector to Regular 16mm cropped to 2.35:1 in the projector gate? I realize that with this option there would be a heavier loss of clarity. Do film camera repairers generally undertake modifications to projectors? I'm not very engineeringly inclined so would have to get someone to modify a projector.

It's a bit of a worry, with these old Super 8 cameras, as to how much longer they really are going to last. With the Bolex and similar cameras at least you know you've got metal parts inside. Recently, I filmed a wedding on a Canon 1014xls, which was my old camera, bought around 1981 or 1982 I think. For years my father had it, and didn't use it, then it got given to another family member and sat in a camera bag for decades. So, for the first time since about 1983, just the other day I got hold of it, put batteries and a roll of 50D in it, and plonked it on a tripod. There was no opportunity to run a test reel first. The bride appeared, and I pressed the run button. It made the familiar purring, whirring sound. And then maybe 3 seconds into the first shot the lit up word "END" started flashing in the viewfinder, a sight I hadn't seen for decades (it was rather interesting actually to see, a non-digital viewfinder display that I'd forgotten all about). The camera came to a stop and wouldn't go again. The bride was now already at the altar. No time to delay! I grabbed out the reel, banged it on my leg a few times, shook it in the air, then slammed it back into the film compartment and pressed the run button again. Success!! So will the camera ever jam again? I don't know, but at least it ran without problems for the rest of the wedding (two reels). We have looked at the two reels online, compressed and un-colour timed, and unfortunately some of the shots are out of focus. I think this is due to a large ball of lint that appeared in the side of the film gate, which was so large it pushed the film away from the gate slightly. I thoroughly cleaned the compartment beforehand and made sure to zoom in and focus carefully on all shots. However, despite that, it mostly came out pretty nicely. I prefer to shoot 16mm though. Just takes longer, with the manual exposure reading (and even the winding takes up time, too, with spring driven. With the turret, you have to shorten the winding lever). Thus, a Bolex SBM S-16 with zoom and an add-on electric motor is the ultimate 16mm camera in my imagination at the moment. That plus Ektachrome film and a great projector. What a dream.

Great article, thanks. Interesting to read what she says about art and how she feels about it, studying the great painters and so on. I suspected she'd have to be like that in her approach to this particular movie. Yes, hollow in the ferns was an interesting title Hardy chose for that scene.

Good idea. I used two strips of tape, top and bottom, on the ground glass of my Bolex S-16 to crop it to 2.35:1. That was really fiddly to put in place, and chinagraph would be much quicker, and still not scratch anything.

The traditional film used by National Geographic still photographers for years was, I think, Ektachrome. It's a highly respected film stock. I never used it much in my filmmaking, since I used Kodachrome or more recently Vision 3. I'm keen to film with it. Thanks Kodak for bringing it back. What are the strengths and weaknesses of Provia?

I must admit, though, that opening title shot on the Cornish coastline in the original 1967 version was amazing - the really long pan. Especially with the soundtrack theme over the top of it. It's a terrific story for feature film widescreen cinematography because of the importance of big landscapes to the story. The story always manages to emphasize how we are all dependent on the land ... and the sky. Sigh.

Wow!! Wonderful news. I'm definitely buying some as soon as I can, but I will wait for 16mm. Next thing is to find out more about adapting a projector to Super 16. Or possibly I might get hold of a standard 16mm camera instead. That would be a lot simpler.

Do you want to stay digital, or get into film? If the latter, I'd save up money and get started straight into that if you can. The sooner the better. Buy a cheap Super 8 camera and a reel of film. If it's got a zoom, zoom in close for each shot, focus carefully, then zoom out and frame the shot before pressing the run button. Exposure should be automatic. Keep your pans and tilts slow enough if you want clarity of image. Best to get a cheap tripod and use a mix of tripod and hand held shooting. Hand held is better with wide angle. As David says, read a lot, and watch a lot. Learn about telling a story with image. Learn the time honoured basics before knowing what rules to break, and why. You don't need sound to get started if you're shooting film. Learn about simple things like avoiding a jumpy look (eg. from the well-known 'jump cut', a fault of shot length and in-camera editing style really). Tell a story with moving pictures. Make some of the shots nice and long. Others can be shorter to save film, but if all the shots are too short the look will be choppy, like literature that has a series of sentences that are too short. So for instance at a wedding, do a nice long shot, probably best on a tripod, of the bride walking to the altar. That calmly sets up the scene. From there, try as best you can to edit in camera. Anyway, just some thoughts for getting started. These are the basics that I was taught at the very beginning, from the books I read. Most of all, do what you are interested in. That will guide you.

Off topic, sorry, yet sort of related, but couldn't help but comment that perhaps 4K and 'higher' digital development is a more promising development for film origination. Okay, so in TV land it's an irrelevant point mostly, but I'm thinking of feature movies. Greater digital capability favours the best aspects of film (as some see it) such as grain and warmth, where as, technologically speaking at least, digital cameras have "gone about as fer as they kin go..." to quote Mr Hammerstein. They can't get much better than they already are. They're already incredibly excellent. Is going 4K or 8K really going to materially improve digital photography and distribution? Or is this really for another thread? Edit: yes, completely irrelevant to the topic of live broadcast. I don't think even the latest improvements in efficient film processing could compete.

Yes indeed, I agree. Would love to make a film with this. Pity it's display only.

Can anyone advise how the shot was done of the character Oak running full-bore up the side of the hill at the 'cliff' scene close to the start? That had great power to it. Was that a dolly (seems unlikely) or was it a vehicle with a steadicam on it? It was very smooth.

I agree with you Timothy about Mulligan. The character of Everdene reminds me of someone I knew years ago and I'm enchanted. I agree also that Boldwood is an interesting character. The earlier films and this one all depicted him brilliantly, but this production stands out as Boldwood seems to be shown as being slightly less of a tragic figure. He's in the running for her more than in earlier films I feel. Actually the director seem to have cunningly worked out the story in a subtle way that shows towards the end what really is in the way of Boldwood's success is that there's something 'there' with Oak and her, but maybe she doesn't realise it yet. But Oak won't ask - which works up to a fine ending. Yes, that bit's in the book but it is made more obvious, but only just, in this production. Truly excellent directing and screenplay. Troy was brilliant in this film too - in fact all the depictions of the soldiers had an amazing 'feel' of the 19th Century to them (not that I would know what it was like to live then, of course, but it seemed to have a great authenticity to it). Plus this production is chock full of small visual touches in the cinematography that have real power. I can't list them all, but just small directorial/DP choices that greatly add to the whole - just like in music when you have a performer who in tiny ways makes a great performance with nuance. Two brief examples: the soldier doing the talking (seeking recruits) in the marketplace slowly walks his horse forward towards camera at his opening shot. That is a tiny nuance of directing or may have been serendipitous (the horse decided to move) but adds to the visual power because it gives a slight gravitas and authenticity to the scene, rather than static. Movement is interest, a lot of the time. Another example : photographing Everdene's sad face in the mirror, towards the end. So nice instead of photographing her directly. Too many subtleties can bog a movie down but just enough small gems can enhance it. Now - a lot of people don't have time for this sort of thing at all these days and would rather watch the 'footy' (football) or a Marvel comics CGI movie whereas I would be quietly dying if I wasn't sustained by entertainment that also attained something of 'art'. Too much art is boring, too, but just the right balance is perfect in film. That's how I see it.

Well, if we're going to roll out the 'have owned' category ... and I've got a spare moment to share while I sip a coffee .... 1. Bell & Howell Super 8 silent camera. My dear Dad and I bought this camera in very early 1979. With it I shot many, many Super 8 productions. The most famous amongst friends and family was 'The Giant', a picture about a marauding .... giant. It included state-of-the-art special effects. 2. An un-remembered Super 8 camera model, also silent, that I borrowed for some months, when the tripod screw thread on the B&H wore out from extended use. 3. Canon 1014 xls sound Super 8 camera. I used this camera again just a few weeks ago to film a wedding. 4. I also used a Canon camera at school, the model of which I don't remember, owned by the Ed Dept. Okay, so I didn't own this one. But it's a fond memory. 5. A wind-up Bolex Standard 8mm camera, two lenses, the label has fallen off. It's not the larger H8 camera. I still have it. I used to buy the Kodachrome K25 film for it at the Kodak shop in the middle of Brisbane CBD. In the eighties 'twas the only place that had the film in stock. I was a trailblazer I guess, as a teenager. 6. My Grandfather's Standard 8mm camera, that I never got around to using. Sadly I now no longer have it. 7. A Bolex H16, non-reflex. Three lenses. It was a great camera. 8. Thence travel forward in time quite some years. A Bolex Rex 5 in S-16. It has a Kern 16mm and Nikkor 50mm on it. Works very well. 9. My teenage dream was to own, or at least use, an Arriflex one day. So how could I resist? I bought a 2C a couple of years ago. I would like to do some 35 mm filming before too long. 10. A Zoom Q8 digital camera, which I bought mainly for the microphone/sound. You see, even I can use digital. It's not all film you know. I think that's it. Maybe there has been a camera or two I've neglected to mention. But the above are the main ones.