Jon O'Brien

They can't use Hasselblad lenses? Hmm, maybe the image circle isn't big enough. Yes, I don't know why 15 perf is used for narrative productions, but who cares, as long as it's real film. I think vertical 5 perf is enough for any cinema - whether exhibited by digital or by film projector. But really, Nolan must know what he's doing.

For instance, Australia has a highly professional feature video industry. We don't make films any more.

Hi Matt, it sounds like the door might be from a later serial number. Don't know about the electric motors. More experienced people will hopefully comment, such as Simon Wyss. I don't own and have never used this model but I do know it's a highly respected camera for the price.

How absolutely cool is that. You know how winemakers can't call their product "Champagne" any more unless it's a product of that region of France? They've got to call it "Sparkling wine" if it doesn't come from there .. I propose that movies cannot be called "Films" if they aren't shot on film. So, movies shot on digital cameras should be called "Videos" which is what they are. I sort of speak in jest. Though it's true.

Film adds art to the movie experience. A movie is half image and half sound. If filmmakers get art into their images (literally half of the equation) they will have a better chance of success with their movies. Film has heart, soul, and humanity. Film is artisanal. It's got a hand-made vibe to it. Good taste and artistic wisdom is slowly coming back. I can start going to the cinema again. There's actually something new to look forward to seeing on the screen again.

Hi Brian, yes I think the less mics for recording acoustic music generally the better. I've heard it said that many of the best classical recordings were made with just two mics in a stereo array. Thanks Nicolas, that's very helpful information. I'm going to get into close micing of instruments a little bit further along the track. I agree about the problems inherent with shotgun mics for this sort of audio capture. My current plan is to use two Rode NT5 mics, each on a separate boom, on separate light stands or C stands if necessary, just above and out of frame. One aimed at the cello f holes and the other towards the centre of the piano, then listen carefully and adjust, then do a take. These mics are designed for recording acoustic instruments. The Deity S-mic 2s I normally use on top of the camera is a fantastic mic but is too directional for this job. Always interested to read more ideas if anyone's got any knowledge/experience to share. Thanks!

Here's another possibility. Just get a good Zoom recorder with its own mics and mount that on the boom pole, in the middle and above the players, just out of frame. Sound won't be as good maybe. Or just get some great shots of them. Get them to make a studio recording of one of their pieces. Use that recording as a non-sync track to various images of them playing in the venue, with slow-mo here and there.

In November I have a shoot coming up with two classical musicians. One's a cellist, the other a pianist. They're both really good players, amongst the best in my area. The cellist asked me if I could film a simple video for advertising their duo online. This won't be a live gig in front of an audience, so we can do other takes. I will also be doing a video ad for the wedding venue (a privately owned Chapel). The plan is that they will play together in the chapel and I will film them, with B-roll shots to fill the scene out. My question is mainly about the audio challenge for this shoot. I want to film them as if they are both playing acoustically, like they do for wedding gigs (the pianist will be playing on a digital keyboard but for all intents and purposes it's an acoustic performance). So, ideally, I don't want microphones in the scene. How is it best to do this, and still get great audio? My current plan is to get hold of another Deity S-Mic 2s small shotgun mic, and use that with my other one and mount both on a boom pole. The boom pole gets held up by a C stand with weight bag on the legs. I put the two mics, perhaps in XY configuration, approximately in the centre of the two musicians, up high and just out of shot. Two long mic cables with XLR connectors go to either directly into a Canon C300 MkIII or into a Zoom recorder. I will need to get better headphones to properly monitor the audio. Does this plan sound feasible? What are other ways to mic this shoot? Can anyone recommend good, low-cost mic solutions other than getting another Deity mic. What about Rode mics? How do other music video shooters handle filming gigs like this? Also, at first I was tempted to hire a second camera, and do a multicam setup, but I think I will have to shoot this with just one C300. My plan is to film an entire run of a performance, the camera locked off on a tripod, medium wide shot. Then do further takes for B-roll shots, with CU shots etc. Any advice appreciated. Thanks!

That sounds interesting Shane. I'd like to know more. I get the opening up by one stop bit but can you explain how you use the ND filter and how that improves the contrast and sharpness when projecting. Thanks.

Yes, if you want to get started as a DP you have to build your own 'film industry' where you are if you're in a provincial area. Nothing will happen otherwise. You have to be the energy and knowledge base that will get films made. A life lesson I know all too well. This means that even though your true interest is being a DP you will have to come up with stories, write screenplays, recruit actors, figure out costuming and props, find locations, and finally, direct as well as do the camera. It's a huge amount of energy and drive needed to be a one person film industry. Been there. Would kinda like to do it again but I'm a bit busy for that now. I hoped I could pick up some camera work gigs but so far there's very little interest in what I have to offer ... because, yep, you guessed it, I need to first create some notable film that will cause people to take me seriously, but to do that I have to drop everything and go back to being a one man band local 'film industry'.

I know it's only one still image but I prefer the look of the top one. I'd call that top image infused with more of a 'yellow, sun-burnt look'. Which to me would seem to suit, given it's supposed to be out west. It also pops off the screen a bit more, which I suppose is a subjective impression to some extent. Or as David Mullen said, the top version is "on the warm side."

Your office should be fine. Those spores are everywhere in the air, anyway. I'd just keep the Yashica in a separate place. I separate my best stuff from anything that has fungus in it. A Kodak K100 I've got has a little bit of fungus in the viewfinder. I don't have fungus in any of my lenses. I've been concerned in the past about the possibility of fungus and mildew. Earlier this year we had a lot of rain and I bought sealable plastic boxes and reusable silica gel bags. Then again, I've filmed with a Canon 1014XL-S that had been kept just in a camera bag for something like 30 humid Queensland summers and the camera was completely fine. No fungus anywhere.

Last I heard, Dom Jaeger in Australia doesn't do Super 8 camera repair either. Possibly he will work on Beaulieus but don't quote me on that, I could be wrong. I can understand repairers steering clear of Super 8 cameras. They are incredibly complex, small and fiddly inside. Not worth the headache. Get one that works, pay extra for it, and hope it keeps working is my advice. Get two or three if you can. Then you've got a backup. Some low cost Super 8 cameras make great emergency backup cameras. I always ask the seller is there corrosion in the battery compartment, even slight? Does the drive wheel at the rear centre of the film compartment turn when the camera runs? For more knowledgeable sellers I will even ask if the iris stops down -- E.g. can they see the aperture closing down when looking into the lens or film gate? I've bought two good, low cost Super 8 cameras on Ebay this way. A Canon Autozoom 814 and a Canon 310 XL (this little one doesn't do 24 fps though).

That's sad. Yes, R.I.P. Another film camera tech departed. Hopefully some new, excellent repair person will take his place. I've had a bit to do with Pro8mm. As a company they've always impressed me. Professional and polite. It goes a long way.

The Canon 1014XL-S was my main camera years ago and I used it a lot. From memory you had to turn the speed dial to '1' to get single frames (but it was a long time ago and I could be wrong) ... but it's not sounding good in my opinion. Because the speed dial also had the option for 18 or 24 fps. So if it's shooting single frames when set to 18 or 24 something is seriously awry inside I'd say. I'd be inclined to steer clear of it unless it's going super cheap.

More big-time feature movies should be shot on Super 16 these days. The look is great in the cinema and on televisions and audiences would love it in my opinion. Average people are finally starting to appreciate the difference between digital acquistion and film. Where I am a lot of digitally shot movies don't do so well in the cinema but whenever something's been shot on film I can't help but notice that the cinema definitely seems to have more people in it. Coincidence? Maybe. The only thing with Super 16 is that it's more difficult to get a shallow depth of field in some shots. But that doesn't really matter. You know, the cinema business and film production doesn't seem to be doing so well lately. Is it even remotely possible this could have something to do with how movies are nearly all shot on digital now? Or is there no connection at all? I can't help but wonder.

I really think this is the main reason. It's minimalism and that's currently the thing. Plus at weddings and gigs like that it's probably felt that there isn't time to move a camera on a tripod around. But, there is time. And if the camera misses a shot then too bad, it missed the shot. Don't worry about it. If necessary just quickly take the camera off the tripod and do some hand held then. The problem is when this style crosses over into narrative filmmaking. It's either lazy or not in the best taste or both most of the time when a hand held camera is used all the time. All hand held is a stills camera thing in my opinion. Using a tripod is a necessary part of the kit in the cine tradition. I understand why many videographers move the camera so much, because a lot of the things they shoot are inherently pretty uninteresting and moving the camera adds some life to the shot. To look good on video or movie film something really has got to move, for most shots. A lot of things we film don't move much. But the problem is it's shot after shot. You end up with a film made up of a continually moving camera, even if the movement is subtle. If most videographers like that style, fine. It's the thing of the day as Phil says. Hold that camera in your hands all the time. It's hip. It's cool! Yeah! You'll probably get the gig because that's how it's done now. I will go back to watching classic old movies on Blu-Ray.

Cool looking thing. Vadercam. Or maybe Darth Cam. Original trilogy with all the dents and knocks.

We've got all this incredible camera tech and almost no one is making quality feature movies at the moment. What's going on? The audiences are still there. I don't know about you but I have to wait about a year between movies coming out that are worth going to see at the cinema. Are feature films dying? They for sure are at the moment.

Ah, so it's not actually a scratch on the film? If it's a scratch, you will see the physical scratch on the surface of the film if you hold it up to the light at the right angle. Check it with a loupe/hand lens in a good light. But you think it might be an optical effect? That's a whole different kettle of fish. It holds steady and it's not just a general 'burn' of the film frame. Therefore something inside the camera that's shiny and is reflecting light. Have a good look with a torch. Might be a bit of shiny surface in the camera that shouldn't be there, just inside the lens mount.

I keep reading all this talk up here in Queensland that the state is gearing up for an influx of big bucks production. A new studio to be built at Yatala. Grants being given out by the state Govt to train crew. It's all hopes and dreams, with some tax dollars apparently being spent. Some believe Queensland will be a new major centre worldwide of feature production. No idea if that's true. Certainly we tend to have lots of sunshine, with lots of great locations.

Just out of curiosity why would the end of high end cameras be praised? Is the thinking that camera jobs will be given to those who own and/or use the lower-end cameras? Come to think of it though, is the footage shot on an Arri all that much better to average eyes than that from cameras such as the Canon C500 and C300 and similarly-priced gear? The high end Arri cameras are no doubt made more robustly to endure more difficult environments and still function flawlessly, but still. There must be so many cinema quality cameras floating around now it would be difficult to make a buck making more of them. Arri can make money from other gear but as to the future of further improvements to cinema cameras I can see the road ahead dwindling into a track.

All pro video cameras are excellent but I did spend a fair bit of time a year ago comparing footage from the Sony FX9 and C300 Mark III cameras before deciding I prefer the look of the imagery you get from the Canon. In my humble opinion its footage looked slightly more filmic. Sure you can change things in post but there are some subtle differences in my opinion. Your mileage may vary.

Yes, could be something sticking out in the path of the film where the film disappears into the slot, to or from the pressure plate. The scratch is consistent and hardly moves. Not cinch marks since they would be random. But since the scratches hold fairly steady and are consistent it seems to me they might be being made at some point within the loop, as the film is being held steady for the exposure.

That's frustrating. I've never had that happen to me. Hope I never do. Perhaps these could be what they call 'cinch' marks which can occur when the end of the film on a wound spool is pulled too tightly. But really, I don't know what the scratches might be. If you find out, please let us know.