Jon O'Brien

Cameras like the FX6 and the new C400 don't have a viewfinder. They seem aimed at younger DPs or the type that grew up with DSLRs and small mirrorless and are most comfortable with that. You can probably sort an EVF solution out but it's obviously not a priority for these models. There seems to be two main styles of cinematography: DPs who want to shoot hand held most of the time, staring at a monitor screen (not how I like to shoot unless I'm using a gimbal etc) and the more dedicated 'cinema' cameras that more traditional cinematographers might feel more comfortable with that are often used on a fluid head tripod. But those more traditional cinema cameras designs are now increasingly found only in the very high range cameras like from Arri. The latest, more mid-range pro cameras seem aimed more for the mirrorless sort of style of videography. Or am I wrong? I don't get it 🙂 Why would a cinematographer not want a viewfinder?

Interesting how the higher the tech gets with digital the more we see just how powerfully compelling the performance of film is.

There truly is no perfect camera, there's just the one you like and decide to go with. No EVF, huh? That's unfortunate. Are you sure? The C300 Mark III can be used with two different EVFs -- one is a small back-mounted design (can't be used with a large battery I think), and the other is a major Arri Alexa-like affair that sticks out the side and is fully adjustable. Some don't like the C300 Mark III because it's a S35 sensor, it's not full frame, and you can use either EF or PL mounts (can fit yourself I believe). I happen to like S35 because it's sort of traditional for narrative pictures ...

Hi Samuel, good to see you back! I've filmed with the C200 and C300 Mark III and love them. A joy to use, and great images.

Yes good point. Beautiful and simple.

Australia needs some kind of online magazine/newsletter specifically for celluloid filmmakers. There's Facebook groups but they're just lists of inane posts, ads, and reminders. Someone needs to write good articles and make occasional videos and films. Maybe I should do it.

Very nice to see a Sydney film magazine writing about Australian filmmakers who shoot on film and seriously aim to make it their calling. This is what we need. Does anyone in Melbourne write articles or newsletters about the goings-on down there in the film shooting world that I hear mere snippets about? If so, great! Could someone let me know where I can read something? Yes, Werner does a great job at Neglab. He is a living legend. Dom is pretty much my only connection with Melbourne's film shooter community. What I know, I know through Dom (not your fault Dom, I know, but I know next to nothing about the Melbourne film shooting community). I will say though that it comes across as somewhat ... aloof. I like how Sydneysiders promote things that need to be communicated. It would be great if any journalistically-minded soul in Melbourne who is interested in film would actually write something about it. Perhaps they have, and I will learn more soon. As for Queensland? Ha! I've not met another film shooter filmmaker yet.

Talent figures out how to make a good movie. We have that talent in Australia. Talent can be rare but it's there. On television, two of the best productions made in Australia in the last ten years in my opinion have been the 'Catching Milat' miniseries, and the multi-season series 'Miss Fisher Murder Mysteries', with the stories being largely based around the St Kilda area (though not actually filmed there most of the time). Both shot on digital of course.

Yes if I ever get a gig filming with a Panaflex I think I will try to avoid the red and yellow magazines if I can.

They also put out a call for those who might become involved in a partnership with Kodak to reintroduce feature film processing in Australia. Read what they say! Be great if Russell Crowe decides that film is the way to go, at least for a percentage of our film production. Come to think of it, Coffs Harbour locations would look amazing on 35mm..

The return of professional film cinematography at long last in Australia! Sydney based short film makers. They get their filmstock processed overseas. Very exciting news. I like how they say in the article that we have reached peak 'junk food' availability of digital or words to that effect. Another way of saying it might be terminal McDonalds level of video everywhere. If I can go to a cinema and see Australian made films shot on actual film again I will be very happy indeed. Well done to these filmmakers!! https://filmcentralmagazine.com/2024/07/meet-the-young-australian-filmmakers-turning-their-love-of-celluloid-into-a-calling/

I agree. Good points! Okay, so it's not really a video game thing. You make a great point about the set and blocking. As many others must, I get shown videos on other people's phones when they find out I do filming myself. A sort of boredom envelops me when being shown videos by this "so cool" (or whatever terminology they use), "incredibly talented" videographer. I politely watch the videos, out of genuine interest, hoping for something good, and am told how amazingly good the cinematography is and how professional the videographer is. I think I sometimes annoy whoever is showing me these videos as I usually just nod and don't say anything. Or maybe say "Hmm, yes." I always see the continually mobile hand held or gimbal held DSLR style, the super slow-motion shots with the confetti sort of gliding around in the air at what seems like 50 times slower than normal speed, the maching gun editing of 'impressions' in conference videos, the almost non-stop tracking style shots and pull-ins etc, the absolutely inevitable drone shot (I actually now wait for it to come), of the church, the conference hall and grounds, the beach where the musicians are standing pretending to play .... A potpourri of video impressions that always is exactly the same. "Great, great shots" I'm told. "He has such an amazing talent." I think perhaps they might be gently hinting, "Your videos need to look like this." What would impress me is a documentary style film of an event. Like was once common. Something that dwells on the people and who they are. I want to see and hear real people and what they do and what they are. Not glib impressions and a slowed down overly sentimental microcosm of life that's only there because it's super easy to film and it fills out the video because what only took seconds in real life is now stretched out much longer. And a continually hand held style because it's also super quick and ... you guessed it. "All too easy" (as Darth Vader once said). I'd like to see filmmakers sweat a bit more maybe.

For TV and internet commercials a drone shot can make a lot of sense in some contexts. But I'm not talking about shots that make sense. I'm talking about the senseless use of a moving camera. There resteth my case.

Drone shots are now so overused, in nearly every little video that's shot outdoors, that I will not complain if I never see another one ever again. A very rare helicopter or drone shot in a movie is good, where it's powerful and magical. Like the opening title shot of We of the Never Never (1982).

Yes there's that great shot in Jaws, when Brodie and the local Mayor or whatever he is get on to a ferry and go across the stretch of water. The camera follows them down the pier and onto the ferry and across. Great shot!! Trouble is, yes, a lot of mediocrity around in camera work I feel. Not much good taste but I guess what's new. Far too many sweeping mobile shots and it takes away the great power of a rare and special moving shot. I find a lot of videography way too hip and cool as if the camera operator is some kind of ballet star. The operator should not be noticeable. It's about the action and the story.

I'm talking about an overuse of a continually mobile, almost alway hand held, camera. It's an overdone look. The camera operator is almost never seen with a tripod unless it's some sort of more permanent studio set up where the filming's being done. Let's say there's a short film being filmed. The cinematographer who gets the gig turns out to be a director or games graphic artist/vfx digital graphics person or stills photographer who decided to also get into cinematography. It's always a hand held camera with a monitor on top and the operator is always walking around with the camera and when filming B roll shots in slow mo is often swinging it to the side, by hand. There's never a tripod. It doesn't matter if it's a big cinema camera or mirrorless. Apparently it's a popular look. Okay, that's fine. I will keep doing things my way. I like a less mobile camera. To me the camera should only move unless it has to, to follow the action, or if a camera move is needed for a rare 'effect' for a special shot (let's say a tracking shot needed to add a feeling of drama to the scene).

In a wedding video for instance, to take one of the baseline pro standards in cinematography as an example, I'd much prefer a locked off camera on a tripod, totally static, or with a few subtle pans, and a bit of true hand held in honest cinema verite style -- in other words just simply and honestly hand held without any contrived gliding from side to side. I'd rather let the action tell the story. Not the camera. Pick that heavy tripod up and move it around. Do some work.

Why do many videographers now use a continually moving hand held camera that glides to the side during the shot or even side to side? Is it because this is how the POV player's perspective in a video game glides around? I ask because younger people I meet tell me that this camera style is contemporary and professional and this is the look to go for in filmmaking. I don't like the style and find it hackneyed and I can't believe people are impressed by it. Do others find a lot of modern camera style sort of ... I don't know. Boring?

These images are beautiful!! What's more, your'e an artist! Film is soooooooo good. How can the digital heads not see it?

I'm going to write a book. 'Some kind of artist', by Jon O'Brien. Available online or in bookstores.

I sometimes contemplate teaching cinematography. I think your ideas are great, starting them out with film stills photography. Then I'd get them onto Super 8, maybe 16mm if the budget extended to that. Digital cinematography at some point of course too. In my view a digital cinematographer should have quite a bit of experience with film. It's the foundation that cinematography is built on. Like, you know, a classical musician really ought to know some Mozart and Beethoven pieces. Not just Stravinsky or Einaudi.

If I was a young filmmaker I would save up and get myself a Bolex or Bell & Howell and start shooting 16mm even if it meant doing only one project a year. Or a Super 8 camera. To my eye digital video doesn't look cinematic. It looks like exactly what it is. Video. Doesn't matter how much you posh it up in post, add fuzzy bits or grain or whatever you like. Still looks like video. But that's okay. Many I meet don't seem to care. Video .. film ... shrug of the shoulders. I had a bit of revelation the other day. I finally found out that a lot of 'filmmakers' around are also into gaming and stuff like that. Also, many are more like directors and not cinematographers. They tend to be heavily into digital imagery, including of course video game design. It's like filmmaking has been overrun by gamers and digital tech heads. I always say that to be a good, interesting cinematographer you've got to be some kind of artist. If you're not ...there's something wrong there. But the other thing is that in my country I suppose the thinking is that if you want to go up the ladder and get to be a big time cinematographer you have to get into digital cinematography and not film because there's no big jobs behind a film camera in this country. Fair enough. There's some wisdom in that. But I still say grab a film camera nevertheless. Go for it. At least you might have slightly more of a chance of developing into some kind of artist.

G'day Jarin. What do you think of film vs digital acquisition for cinema release narrative feature movies? Do you prefer working with film because of the work flow, or do you more prefer the look in the cinema, or both?

Yes that's right. If I was a director and had the power to say what goes and what doesn't I would do it the traditional way too. No video village. Let the cinematographer do the whole image side of it. Keep the budget down too.

Filming while gawking at a monitor is fine if you're skateboarding along the road, filming someone else skateboarding. and for filming someone skiing etc etc. But all the time? Always and everywhere?