Jon O'Brien

Joe Dunton's exposition of Kubrick's favoured lenses for his 2C is very interesting. I notice that his lenses are somewhat narrow in build - and I think this might have been a necessary factor in lens choice for the 2C camera. I don't think I've ever seen a picture of a 2C with a large-barrelled (for want of a better term), 'fat' cine lens sticking out the end of it - like something of the girth of a Rokinon Xeen for instance (one make of lens I've done some research on) or bigger. I think the mirror housing might get in the way. Indeed this is what Tyler said recently on another thread. Specifically for the 2C, or IIC if you like to write it like that, are these narrower-bodied lenses more prone to faint vignetting (not hard vignetting, I mean very slight underexposure in the corners of frame)? Now don't get me wrong I'm not suggesting Kubrick would have chosen lenses that vignetted. He was a master. What I'm on about is that I have read (and listened to) quite a bit of advice on the internet about how photography lenses are really not very good for use on cinema cameras. Yep, I've looked carefully into issues of breathing, colour matching, aberration, distortion of wides on cheaper lenses, filter/mattebox issues etc, follow focus/short focus throw and reverse focus, cheap plastic components especially in later AF lenses with sloppy travel, FFD and depth of focus and questions of mount type, and so on ... but the one thing that mainly gets me doubting the use of (many) photography lenses is potential for slight vignetting effects. Specifically on a 2C. I know that there's nothing distinctive about the film gate about this camera - I merely mean that 'thicker' lenses simply may not fit on it. Can anyone direct me to some good information on this subject. I've looked but so far haven't found much expert knowledge on it. There is reams of advice on the internet about how cine lenses are the way to go for filmmakers. I'm not talking about that. That bit is clear. I accept that for a professional production crew it is the only way to go because of so many issues such as focus pulling, breathing etc etc etc.. I'm talking about low budget independent filmmaking and I'm not interested in debating why a low budget filmmaker would even consider shooting on film, let alone 35mm. You will just have to accept that that's the way I would like to go about doing my filmmaking - if I can. Thank you for any advice on this!

All very true. In my defence, I was sort of trying to make a slight joke.

Oh, I know. I should have been more clear. I meant new ones. As in, first one for 2019 ... and shown at the local cinema.

And as Robin said earlier, I think there's a general tendency to want to defend our 'pet' format that we have invested money and experience and research time into. I do it. But really we should all be open to many different ways to film a movie. Any format that suits that production. When's the first feature movie on Super 8 coming out? I promise, if it's good I will go and see it.

'The Force Awakens' to me looked very similar to 'Rogue One' on the big screen just going by things like cleanliness/grainlessness of image. However, when I went to see 'Darkest Hour' at the cinema it was as clear as a bell to me that the movie had been shot on a digital camera. The movie looked good, but it was easy to see it wasn't shot on film. I usually sit a fair way back from the screen. One thing I don't understand with S16 destined for the cinema is reading about creative decisions that seek to increase grain, but that's what the makers want so fair enough. I think I'd try and increase the 'film' look of 4 perf anamorphic (eg. with grain) but with S16 on the big screen I think I'd be bending over backwards to try to reduce it. When grain on the big screen starts to take on a darkish noise somewhat similar to coffee grains it's gone too far in my opinion and typical 70s/80s photochemical 35mm prints didn't really look like that (in my opinion). So in S16 I'd try to reduce that, and from what I've read I believe it can be done. I base this all of course as an audience member who likes the look of film. I have a background in art and come from a family of several painters, so tend to have strong opinions on the look of a work of visual art which can get me into in-depth conversation at times. People can get offended. I often come away thinking, oh just like what you want and I will like what I want. Or I keep my opinion to myself - a trick I've learned. But here, I'm genuinely interested to learn about the technique behind filmmaking as I get more into it myself. My outlook is that 2 and 3 perf is an interesting possibility, nestled in between S16 and anamorphic 35mm, for films destined for the big screen. Like everyone else I'm on a journey of learning.

It's a great look, but aspiring S16 filmmakers should go and see S16-shot films in the cinema as soon as possible to get a clear picture of what they look like in the initial exhibition (if they perhaps aspire to cinema release productions in any way, shape or form). Because I think it's fair to say S16 films look grainier on the big screen than on tv screens and monitors. Unless measures are made to reduce grain. And if that's the look you want, grainy or less so, then that's good. You have a clearer vision of what it is you're trying to achieve. Which is the path an artist walks.

I'm selling my Bolex Rex 5 Super 16 camera, and it comes with a Switar 16mm Rx lens. Total package AUD$1500 plus shipping. I will get around to posting photos soon, plus hopefully a link to a 2 minute film clip shot on it. The camera and lens are in great condition. The spring is strong, the image looks great and stable. The lens is completely fine, no fungus, fogging, or scratches. Iris and focus are perfect and rings turn smoothly. C mount to Nikon mount adapter included. I've had no problems with this camera and lens. Totally ready to start shooting with. Reason I'm selling is I'm changing to Arri and I can only afford one system. I'm in Queensland, Australia.

Great looking movie.

I think in film origination there's The Great Three that are right up there with keeping that 'real film look': Super 16, 2 perf, and 3 perf. Choose the one you're happiest working with. 4 perf Scope looks amazing too of course, though these days it's more difficult to tell even on the cinema screen if it's shot on film, or on an Alexa.

I'm contemplating getting a tripod with Mitchell top, since I've found a good fluid head that supports up to 30 lbs, which fits to a Mitchell. Are there any particular drawbacks to a Mitchell mount tripod? Any opinions on Ronford Baker heads and tripods? Thanks for any advice. This is for an Arri IIC.

Ads with a bit of pizzazz and tongue in cheek humour. Bring 'em back. And in arty, vhs-look, 1.33 too. Can someone digitally render in an animation of a camera over the soap box?

Good advice Stuart and Brenton. Thanks!

What about using Nikkor (Nikon) lenses on film cameras? There are some interesting older threads on this topic. Anyone encountered any problems using these lenses in cinematography? Yes, it's true they aren't cine lenses and you can't use a follow focus on them, and they probably breathe and so on too. Also, they just won't fit on some cameras such as Arri without extensive camera modification. But aside from all that, and assuming one could get the modification done, how good are they as a low-cost lens in filmmaking? Any digital users also like to comment?

Some time spent at a rental house might be the answer, and talking with the person there who knows film cameras best. And renting before buying anything.

Regarding 35mm, I think something that would be really interesting in terms of seeing movies projected on the big screen in the cinema as a DCP, is finding interesting lenses and optical techniques for making more anamorphic-looking bokeh and shallower dof with 2 perf. In other words using 2 perf but trying as much as possible to get a vintage 70s type look of a scope 35mm print seen at the local cinema. Pushing the grain out more too/cropping more in post to make grain more obvious, and that type of thing. With S16 I'd be trying to decrease grain as much as possible and try to make it look as much like 35mm as possible. Shoot 50D if necessary. Of course it's still going to be very grainy though, but a bit less so.

Thanks guys, much appreciated. I wonder how the Sigma 18-35 would go on an Arri 35III. Filmmaking can be like chess - heaven help you if you make a wrong move.

Can anyone advise if these lenses might work well on an Arri 35-III adapted to 2 perf? https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1185218-REG/rokinon_xeen_24_50_85mm.html Thank you.

https://www.kodak.com/gb/en/motion/blog/blog_post/?contentid=4295006106

Re the film vs digital thing, the strong film advocates of the 2017/18 'debates' are less vocal here lately it seems. Too busy or something ... or gone over to all-digital. Has the debate been won? Are the film-only people like the statue of 'The dying Gaul', as in, utterly done in? No way, they live on, surging ahead on distant yonder hill ... (a bit like 'The Man from Snowy River', if you know that poem).

I've given up debating, even as a humble member of ye little olde audience and as an amateur in comparison to the pros here. People, just do what you want ... and what you can. But here is an article I derived some pleasure in reading, for those interested in musing upon 35mm film's tenacious ability to survive the cinema revolution that saw multi-hundred-thousand-dollar relics of the engineer's art (eg. 35/70 film projectors) end up in tiny little, dusty, privately-owned garden sheds like I saw the other day ... patiently awaiting for their day 'in the sun' once more. https://filmmakermagazine.com/105050-31-films-shot-on-35mm-released-in-2017/#.XC0_1VwzbIU

Yep, I bet 1.33 would look stunning. Cropped to 2.40:1 is quite grainy in my opinion, but sure, if that's the look the filmmakers want then that's what they want.

On further reflection, I should have typed "movies in formats smaller than 4 perf anamorphic". I didn't see 'Far from the Madding Crowd' at the cinema, so my comment doesn't apply to it.

You could check out these people. They are very film oriented. http://www.videofilmsolutions.com/digital-intermediates--printing

To each his own, but at the cinema for features I prefer the look of 35mm in dcp :) I find 16mm just a tad too grainy so far for the features I've seen but it's all personal preference of course. Also I sometimes find the 16mm look in dcp sort of very slightly 'dark' or underexposed in the dcps I've seen, compared to the digitally-shot previews etc before the main show, but I still can't figure out why that is. If someone could enlighten me on this I'd be grateful. Just projector brightness levels I guess, but still, should it be necessary to adjust brightness for film-shot movies? In 2019 I have to get to some other cinemas to properly check out digital projection of movies shot on film. I can't judge this from just one cinema I frequent.

It can be difficult to track down 35mm and 70mm film screenings here, but last time I saw 70mm not too long ago I was again struck by the look of what I was seeing. It was so satisfying to watch the movie. It felt like an event. When I go back to 'normal' dcp screenings I notice that, at least at my regular cinema, movies shot on film look noticeably less good than the ones shot on digital (to my eye). But film on dvd at home looks great on my tv screen (eg. 'Far from the Madding Crowd', 2015). By the way, does anyone know if 'Phantom Thread' was shot on 4 perf spherical?