Jump to content

Jon O'Brien

Basic Member
  • Posts

    1,501
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jon O'Brien

  1. At this stage, short duration spring is fine, so definitely will see if I can find one of those flexible shaft winders - they sound just the ticket. That and a quick-level tripod would make a big difference. Processing will be in Sydney (Neglab) and am sending off today. Gregg, your comments are wise. I will give myself some leeway and not have my hopes up too high for my first reel. I will also look around for film people, but here, digital is king amongst those interested in filmmaking, and I've already been told by four locals and near-locals that movie film is 1. "old school", 2. "It's all digital now, film is pretty much finished", 3. "Oh .... (confused vibe latent in the air) .. (laugh) ... you're doing things the hard way"; and " (smirk) Oh Jon, why don't you throw that old dinosaur in the bin and buy a real digital camera (or words to that effect)". Sigh. It's all good. I'm not an iconoclast, or trying to be different, but am doing this because I genuinely really only want to shoot on film - and I was always like that - I always felt strongly about it. I'm enjoying being the only real film guy, that I know of anyway, around these parts. If there are any others in the Brisbane/SEQ region who would like to contact, feel free to join cinematography.com if you haven't already and send me a PM. Plus, another update, the company I work for has indicated I could possibly be involved in some digital film production, so you see, looks like I might be getting acquainted with digital.
  2. If the tripod tilt lock failed on that thing there would be a risk of a death on set - not just a damaged camera.
  3. I was wondering about that lately - that with digital projection 2-perf and S16 are in some ways the new 4-perf. So maybe that makes 4-perf C-scope the new 65mm. Something along the lines of Ryan's Daughter, a big canvas with epic, huge shots of the Irish landscape and coast, and changing weather, would be great on 35mm today. What a dream to shoot a picture like that! Still, it would be even better shot on 65mm and projected in 70mm film, as was the original movie.
  4. That sounds an interesting idea! I think I'd go more with a "based on" concept than pure history, myself. One of the fetching things about it could be faithfully capturing that rather fun feel of the 70s that I, so far, haven't seen perfectly captured yet. Down to greenish glass bottles of coke, bottle cap remover on the wall outside the milk bar door (well, my local milk bar had that, anyway), stripy t shirts too tight, flares, long hair, period-era McDonalds, 70s cars, Suzie Quatro, Abba, Sweet, and AC DC. Correction: Abba might be period-incorrect. Maybe they were slightly later.
  5. Some initial post-event determinations. Wind-up can be a drag when you are a filmmaker who likes to grab quick opportunities. Made more so by the use of a turret, requiring moving of turret or frustrating use of short wind lever. A tripod that requires levelling by adjusting the legs is another problem. If I were to get more serious with this, I think I might need an electric motor and battery and a big tripod with 100mm or 150mm bowl, quick levelling, and baby legs as well. I'm thinking that rental options are looking more and more attractive. Why muck around? I'm not criticizing the Bolex, but just seeing that for best results you possibly need to think of different gear.
  6. I still think the opening sequence of Star Wars (1977) is one of the best ever in any 'space ship' shot. Pure optical photography of a real model, entirely made by hand (shot by John Dykstra, a genius). Beautifully lit, too. I think old fashioned model photography in sci-fi is fine for feature movies. Yes, you can usually tell it's fake but it just looks so fascinating if it's been done really well. I'm a bit over CGI spaceship shots. They look 'perfect' but they are somehow often a bit ho-hum on the entertainment scale, at least to my eye.
  7. Thanks Dom! Yes, I was on a steep learning curve, but I really did learn so that's great. By the end of the reel I was feeling I was getting my sea legs back.
  8. It's all police, cooking, monkeys mating in the trees, dumbo reality shows, and River Monsters.
  9. Thank you, Jean-Louis. Well, I have finally done some filming on the Bolex - my first for years. It was tough at first. You know what, I was sweating. Trying to concentrate, work out f-stop, focus, etc., all while discussing various topics with my subject, and trying to remain an affable filmmaker. At one point got so flustered trying to catch the light in time (we were in a rapidly changing light situation, with huge ominous clouds billowing across like something out of Ryan's Daughter) that I forgot in one or two shots to focus at the most open stop (at least, I think I forgot - will have to wait and see). The tripod I was using was slow to use. Anyway, on the whole it was good. However .... Got home, and noticed that the Sekonic L398A light meter ISO dial was now set on two clicks slower film speed than what I'd set it on when beginning filming (it was supposed to be set on 32 ASA to reflect the 2/3 stop difference when using reflex Bolexes). So at least some of the later shots are going to be 2/3 stop, or maybe a full stop, over exposed. At least that's better than under exposed. This was with Kodak 50D. Realised that the ISO dial on my light meter rotates *way* too easily. I hadn't put it on a lanyard yet and was stuffing it quickly in and out of my pocket and this must have turned the dial inadvertently. Blast! The dial turns too easily. It is easily moved with just the slightest sideways pressure. Using it, I will have to check the ISO dial every single exposure. What a drag. I wonder if I should send it back. Anyway, hopefully we got some nice shots.
  10. Just a quick question, probably a dumb one but I've looked around the internet and can't find the answer. Haven't read the preceding posts yet but will, with interest, later on. So here's my question. You've just filmed a full 100' roll of film in your Bolex. Lo and behold, the film is now all on the bottom take-up reel. Before sending the film off for processing, do you have to re-wind the film back on to the top reel, in-camera (with shutter closed and lens caps on etc. and motor disengaged - I have a re-winding lever btw). Or do you simply pop out the full bottom reel, in semi-darkness of course, put it back in light-proof box, and post off for processing? I last filmed in 16mm in 1983 and can't remember what to do! Nearly everything I did was on Super 8. Thanks for your help.
  11. I'd imagine one of the biggest problems budget-wise with sci-fi (before getting into talk of vfx) is set construction; and also exotic locations (eg. desert). Dystopia type science fiction I think would be easier to do - I often mention a low budget movie called Soylent Green made in the early 70s. It made use of existing urban locations, with car wrecks and general urban decay lying everywhere etc (easily done), and a few matte-painting shots of futuristic cityscapes that were done at night time in near darkness to hide the cheap look. But the key to that movie was really the acting talent - Charlton Heston and especially Edward G. Robinson. That's the sort of movie I'd like to see being made again - lower budget but concentrating on people and their problems/challenges/joys/fears/redemption etc, no or almost no CGI, great scripts with pathos, and real, believable (and lovable) people in them. A lot of the old films had characters that really stay with you. They were sort of lovable. Another trick for lower budget sci-fi is to film at a pre-existing mine, factory or treatment plant, if it's possible. Mad Max (as it was titled in Australia - I think it was called Road Warrior in the US) was a lowish-budget film that was set in a dystopic future too, but was set 'out west'. That film needed a lot of stunt work. I'm often thinking of ways to make a feature movie - what sort of formula will work best for low budget. If I ever did become a pro filmmaker I don't think I could work for the studio system. I'd want to make my own pictures.
  12. I can't remember where I read it, but some very successful filmmaker/storyteller once said something along the lines that a lot of really good, entertaining movies actually have a very simple, and when you sit back and think about it, pretty dumb or at least very basic premise. You know, think about The Thing - some scientists stuck out in the middle of nowhere with a monster. An inevitable series of events. Or think about Alien - some hapless company employees stuck out on floating hulk on the edges of the known part of the universe, with this truly creepy monster hiding in the shadows. I really think that a good location that a movie is set in is part of the trick to entice the audience in to the fun of the whole story. Some movies just start and you sink back in your chair, and think, yes, this is going to be fun. The location itself is just so interesting - and creates its own set of problems and challenges so much that it sort of defines the story and the characters and what they do, and how entertaining the whole thing turns out to be. But it's also a big challenge for a script writer. How many Ice Station Zebras and The Things can be shot? Maybe lots - just keep on churning 'em out. The enduring fascination comes from a need to be entertained.
  13. The Arri II seems to get by fine without pin registration though, on the big screen on major productions, usually as B camera. Lucas used it for at least a few scenes in Star Wars IV (1977), eg. some shots of the opening storm trooper scenes, storming Princess Leia's ship, and at least one shot of the raiders jumping on a Bantha. That amazes me, to think of that tiny little camera, used for that! https://i.pinimg.com/originals/68/ff/0c/68ff0c816403e10598ea763b9ae21f17.jpg
  14. "Action over words" - you are so right, Dom. I've been in this situation before, when I wanted to get going with a project, but for various reasons couldn't, and compensated for that by writing about the subject. Thankfully, I did eventually get moving in that field. Anyway, this has been a pretty cool topic, thanks Macks for a chance to pound the keys on this topic. I will be back, on more practical matters, on other threads ...
  15. I wasn't worried what Robin wrote. I think it's all funny really, and worth having a dig. He's right in a lot of ways. I just enjoy writing about film, and watching it, and soon to be filming with it. But, for me, I've said too much on this. Enough!
  16. Not a ridiculous assertion Dom, at all. You just feel like having a go. Fair enough. Yes, I will be filming soon. If I'm writing too much on the internet, just tell me (which I think you are doing). Yes, your point is taken, I'm just stuck at the moment and can't do much (not of my own choosing) but I will be soon. Thanks for the advice you give me.
  17. People today cringe at the idea of art. Everyone wants to be seen as a "professional", a member of an "industry". But it's all just words. Ideas. "Art" is just a simple three letter, one syllable word that means creative production. An artist is seen as a failure today, someone who never left the garret and who can't cope. It's actually garbage. Real artists who support themselves are not like that. Big difference to earlier times, not so long ago: the artist as hero. Anyway, so some filmmakers don't like what they do called "art." Okay. But to think that you can just turn on a button and all is hunky-dory is naive in itself. There's more to creative production than convenience and ease. Creative people have to talk about quality, and sometimes fight for it.
  18. Well, funny image, yes, but that's a joke that sort of comes back to bite the teller. Make fun of art and artists, which is a common past time, but what does that make you? What is considered industry standard? Turn on the spotty, fill that sucker with light, press the red play button and go for it. We'll fix the rest in post. Head down to the pub and think about golf next Saturday .... What's an artist, really, once you get past all the b.s. and gauloises and berets? Someone who cares enough to comment about it, to think about it ... someone who cares, really. That's about it. Oh, and someone who produces something that's pretty good.
  19. Thanks Carl, and Simon, have read everything you wrote. Am shooting the first reel in just a few days time. I've been very slow getting around to it - but soon the film will be whirring through the gate - I promise. Then ring up Werner and hope all is well for getting it processed. As far as I can see, 2/3 of a stop will do for the first reel. Then see what the exposure generally come out like, and adjust from there if necessary.
  20. Yes, thanks David! Very, very helpful explanation. There's a lot covered in this.
  21. Do other traditions have conceptions of beauty? Yes. Are they just as valuable? Yes.
  22. Yes, economics, which is always linked to artistic will, and energy of a society. Kenneth Clark made some very pertinent observations in his long tv series (shot on 16mm!) on civilization. The show was called, naturally enough, Civilization. https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/the-seductive-enthusiasm-of-kenneth-clarks-civilisation
  23. Not wanting to get into 'deep' discussions of what reference frame we're coming from, whether post-modernist, contemporary grunge or whatever it might happen to be called, or something else, but in terms of traditional, western, classical conceptions of 'beauty' in artistic form, that's a beautiful image. As Michael says, it's tastefully lit, and the composition is excellent. It has interesting and satisfying curves and lines in it, and there is an assymetry that is very pleasing to the eye. There is dark undefined background material to the right of subject, and almost blank 'canvas' to the left with a bit of interesting texture (straw, or whatever it is). The play of light (highlights) is also slightly assymetrical (slightly more highlight, on balance, on the left). The subjects are back lit from a low angle that gives a suggestion of some sort of magic in their relationship or what they're talking about - it's like a golden lining. There are other rich, subtle details. The background is entirely inconsequential and throws all attention on the subject (the two lovers) yet is artistically framed. The whole thing, in the western classical tradition, can be described as "beautiful". It's a truly nice picture - a lot of care has gone into creating it. Students used to get taught traditional western art conception of 'beauty' but maybe not so much any more. My lighting points might be a bit off as I've never lit such a scene - but that's how it looks to me. That picture is telling a story. It's revealing a sort of 'ethos' that is being lost in the world. We need to get it back - audiences want it.
  24. That Super 8 looks fantastic. Really brings home to me how, with a DCP, S-16mm shot on today's low grain stocks is eminently suitable for shooting a feature movie. I wouldn't go the anamorphic route - I'd shoot in S16 and crop to 2.35:1 in post. The future's bright for film.
  25. When I used to attend amateur film club screening nights back in the 80s as a teenager (travelled a long way to do that!) the 16mm films just looked incredibly glorious. I still remember the exact look. I've never seen anything that comes close to beating it. Same with 35mm feature movies shown with film projectors. If you love movies, you've got to go and see real projected film. Specifically for digitally-projected feature movies shot on film, I wonder if they can develop a cinema projector that could re-introduce the right type of flicker and get as close as possible to a film projector look - I don't think they will ever get it as good, but they might get very close and that would be great - as would being able to still keep going to see the real thing in selected theatres.
×
×
  • Create New...