Jon O'Brien
-
Posts
1,532 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by Jon O'Brien
-
My post isn't related to the Elaine, but in regards to Dom's comment I own an Arri 2C that I bought two years ago, which has a Panavision mount on it. It was advertised as PL mount and that's what I thought it was at first after it arrived but I decided to keep it. I've been thinking of getting the lens mount changed to PL by Bruce McNaughton, but occasionally wonder if it might be worth keeping it as it is. Any ideas how rare these Pan-Arri 2Cs might be, Dom? Perhaps they're quite common. I have no idea. The camera has an F&B Ceco label on the plate that covers the film compartment when there is no magazine fitted, but I contacted the former owner of the company and he had no recollection of ever having a PanArri 2C in the inventory, so the plate must have come from another camera. The camera appears to be in good working order.
-
Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 4K - CONFIRMED! BMPCC 4K!
Jon O'Brien replied to Samuel Berger's topic in BlackMagic Design
"Well, if you have the money to do a theatrical release, you can afford to rent a decent camera ..." Yeah, that's what I reckon. Save up your money and rent, if you want to shoot a feature. Unless you want something to practice on. If I got serious I'd go to one of the rental houses. -
Wonderful music too. Solo violin, harp, great writing. Evocative impressions created by music that exactly matches the mood, such as the ferns scene, the nighttime walk with lamp, and so on. The folk singing was a magical touch, and was Boldwood's one chance to shine in all the versions I've seen when he sings bass in church, and stands up and sings harmony at the harvest supper. Ah dear, this film is just so good as art.
-
Yes, I noticed this too in several of the shots, and it was refreshing. So often in movies the beautiful female lead is always shown in a very flattering way. This movie is different. Carey Mulligan is shown a few times in sort of very 'average' close-ups that sometimes weren't flattering. That helps make it so healthy and real in look and that's so important these days when there's so much fake and overdone stuff around. It's so boring when all you get in movies is an artificial, ever-present beauty that is usually pretty plastic. The scene of her talking with Gabriel early on, in the field, just after he went to visit her, she is without make-up and even looks a bit tired, but her face lights up when she's talking. Now that's truly something to look at and remember! It's great that the cinematographer could bring this out. Very tastefully photographed scene of Bathsheba and Troy in the woods. Outdid all other versions in my opinion. Oak was the best portrayal of this character in film I think. When the disaster occurs on the cliff his grief is believable. He's just instantly become a pauper. It shows. The timing of day is often priceless in so many scenes, when they chose the exact moment of the day to run camera. The sunlight is golden in many important scenes. I can't believe how well the filmmakers did. I watched it all again last night. Just a brilliant movie. Thanks everyone for all the views on fluid vs geared. Very interesting to read the opinions.
-
Ah-ha! That might explain the problems I had. It was the v14 free version I used, and that's not a bad way of describing it, that it didn't seem to fully install, and things didn't seem to completely work.
-
How Illegal Is It To Shoot @ a Cemetary?
Jon O'Brien replied to Max Field's topic in Business Practices & Producing
I haven't read all the above advice but mine is don't have the camera/lights etc set up or even someone standing on any grave as that's considered hallowed ground by many and disrespectful to stand there. Even apparently vacant plots might have a body in them, and the public might consider it disrespectful and unprofessional if they gear or crew there. Put people and gear on the pathways. Gingerly walking along the border between graves is fine. That's my view. -
One technical question. On the behind-the-scenes of the making of this film I see the 35mm cameras were used with fluid heads on the tripods. Why is it that these days a lot of pictures seem to be made without the once very common geared head? Is it a regional difference? Same with The Force Awakens, I noticed that. What practically speaking is the difference in the look of the shots?
-
Well, I watched it, the Carey Mulligan version, 2015. Absolutely love it. I'm guessing many of the extremely low-light scenes were shot on a digital camera. Beautiful cinematography - I didn't find the handheld detracted from the story or made me conscious of the camera. Very encouraging to know excellent films are still being made. It differed a lot from the book but that's fine - novels and movies are two different things entirely and a movie can never slavishly follow a novel and not become boring and over-detailed. The actors were all fantastic. I was really impressed especially with Carey Mulligan's acting. The actors who played the three lead male roles were perfectly cast. Stellar effort. Warning, spoiler alert. I thought the final scene, the real pay-off moment after all the tension, was brilliant, how Oak says nothing but just moves in and grabs her. Very different to the book but worked perfectly.
-
Thank you for that Brian. I will spend some time looking into this. Thanks Tyler. Great to know this in advance.
-
The last time I tried to figure out how to work the free version of Davinci Resolve, in re-grading an already-graded (by the lab, which I paid extra for) 16mm reel, I spent many, many hours trying to figure it out, and didn't manage to figure out hardly a thing. It could be my problem was that the computer was too slow, or maybe the footage had already been graded and there's not much you can do with it once its done.
-
Yes, would definitely miss the sun over here, if I moved to England. Aussies are addicted to sun I think. We soak it up like sponges.
-
I wish we could make pictures like this, here, in Australia. As in, shot on film. It would do so much for the industry here in my opinion. I know there are plenty of people who disagree.
-
One of English literature's great works, about a fascinating time, the 19th Century, and set in a rural location. I've read the book many times and seen the 1967 and 1998 film versions, both of which are great. We were given the book to read in school and I was very fond of the story from the beginning. Of the movies, in some ways I prefer the 1998 film, which I think might have been made for tv. There's something about this story, and the time and place it is set, and the way it's described/presented, that is quietly magical. However, inevitably, some people find it boring. I remember a woman complaining that Hardy's writing about wind sighing through trees and grassy hills, and so on, as being so incredibly dull to read. I couldn't believe how strongly my opinion differed to hers. I will watch this newer version. It's an excellent subject for a movie, and especially for film.
-
Yes, if you mean the Ektachrome, I'd think that would still be necessary. But I don't know.
-
What about the classic shot in the 1973 film The Poseidon Adventure. Everything gets flipped upside down, and someone hangs on as long as they can and then steals the show by spectacularly crashing through a huge, glass, complex, skylight/chandelier thing. Another option: a new take on the famous shot of Darth Vader turning momentarily away as he flips a switch, during which Luke Skywalker makes his sudden debut as a gravity-defying Jedi. It could be a woman in Luke's place, flying right through the ceiling. In her vertical ascent she sees Gene Wilder in his magical flying machine from the chocolate factory, and he tips his hat to her with his cane and she smiles.
-
If you send Super 8 negative to Nanolab, does the scanning price include colour grading? I'm guessing it must, as grading doesn't seem to be mentioned on the site, and it's always necessary. I've sent 16mm 50D to Neglab and got it scanned by Memorylab. I'm thinking in future I will shoot on Ektachrome and just get that scanned, though will probably cost more, but at least I have the option to project the film. I would really like to do some 35mm shooting too at some stage, as I have a camera. I think I need to get Bruce in Victoria to change the lens mount though as it appears to be a Panavision lens mount!
-
What is the best way to learn how to do this complete digital workflow? What is the ideal set up? Is there a book, or series of books that can guide you in this? I'm interested in shooting on Super 16 and editing, colouring and distributing digitally. The film side of it I'm fine with to get started. The computer side for me is the main mystery.
-
Just for sake of completeness I would like to mention Bartlett Audio, Weaverville NC. I don't know if these are useful for filmmaking but I have one of these lavalier mics and it is really great for music performance. Very high quality sound for a great price.
-
I'm so looking forward to Ektachrome coming back, mainly in my case for 16mm. I shot a wedding last weekend on Super 8, two rolls of 50D, on a Canon 1014 xl-s. First time I'd used this camera since about 1982. It still worked!! (well as far as I know). When I pulled out the second reel there was some lint in the corner of the film gate even though I carefully checked and cleaned gate and compartment before filming started. We will wait and see what the results come out like. There was no opportunity to do a test before the wedding, so results were accepted as being a risk. Word seems to be getting around that I'm back behind a camera, after a few decades away - I have been asked to help film a conference later this year.
-
One idea comes to my mind to describe the typical 35mm prints in days of yore: 'warm and earthy', over the more 'clinical' precision of today's cinema imagery.
-
Yes I remember typical 35mm cinemascope and 1.85:1 spherical projection back in the 70s when I was about 10 or thereabouts. Some of the prints were a bit fuzzy and not all that sharp, and that wasn't from being focused poorly. I must have had a bit of a critical eye for such things, as I did notice it (I think the friends I went to the movies with as a kid would have been more interested in less technical aspects, like the Minties, Jaffas and so on - sweets we used to get at the flicks). But I still loved it all. From a young age I watched the slow and unstoppable growth of video on tv. Even on the old tvs of those days the difference between film and video was huge. BBC productions used to do all interiors with video, and anything shot outside was on film. Then it was all video. For some reason I was drawn to film. Today I will go out of my way to watch a film shot on film, even if projected digitally. Most recent all-digital production I really enjoyed was Darkest Hour. Would have enjoyed it more if shot on film. You can see a difference. I can anyway. On the whole, though, 35mm projection at the local cinema was just great. Nice and sharp. Sharp enough for telling the story well. Digital can look too sharp, grainless and clinical to my eye.
-
Flicker was ever so slightly noticeable at 18 fps but all the projectors could run at that speed, even sound projectors. I started out as a filmmaker at 18 fps but soon went to 24 when I got my first sound camera. The improvement in sound quality on the magnetic stripe was fairly noticeable.
-
I wrote an essay on the golden mean and the Fibonacci sequence at uni. I've still got it somewhere. I think a lot of artists do use it without thinking, and a few are methodical about - for instance the composer Bartok used it in proportion of the number of bars within sections. A cinematographer can sort of create dramatic tension by pushing the limits of it. Freddie Young for instance in Lawrence of Arabia (yes I do mention him a lot - he's my favourite) frames a shot of a Bedouin on a camel in the far right of frame. All else is bare sand and light. The camel is too far to the right for the golden mean, but I think it was framed like that as it emphasizes the rider watching intently, looking to left of screen, as he is waiting for his friend Lawrence to appear. That tension with usual proportion can create dramatic effect.
-
Ektachrome 100 is BACK!!
Jon O'Brien replied to Nick Collingwood's topic in Film Stocks & Processing
I agree. This is really good news. It has to be said. -
Cameras suitable in order to pitch/sell to Netflix, etc
Jon O'Brien replied to Mario Bosanac's topic in General Discussion
You could shoot on real film too. Go on, just do it. If you build it they will come ... if it's good enough.