Jon O'Brien

Beaulieu 4008 I mean. From Pro8mm.

This might sound like a very basic question but what's a good formula for calculating FOV? I'm filming an orchestra concert soon and have just been told I can set up the camera in the sound room at the back of the theatre, or alternatively set the camera up amongst the audience, in the auditorium if necessary. I'd prefer to shoot the wide angle shot of the entire orchestra from the sound room if possible as the height is good and it's centred on the stage. The sensor size of the camera is Super 35. I'm wondering what the field of view will be of the stage, in other words how wide in metres from one side to the other will be the field of coverage of the stage, given the lenses I've got. I can hire various focal length range lenses. I could go to the venue and check but it would be good to know in advance. The distance of the camera to the stage will be 50m. If anyone has any advice I'd be glad to read it. Thanks.

Great camera but it's still a video camera. Scanned 35mm and 16mm film create a more compelling look for a feature movie on the big screen in my opinion. Film has screen presence. And filmmaking street cred. You can't lose with film.

I heard they used something like 1,200 Super 8 cartridges, and filmed with Pro8mm refurbished Beaulieu 4800s.

Looks great aapo! I have a question. I haven't got time at the moment to read this whole thread but wanted to ask something about specifically the Arri SR camera (not necessarily later versions of this camera such as SR2, 3). If the motor/electronics/circuit boards on one of these one day developed problems would you or anyone else you know about be able to replace the electronic parts with something that would at least operate the camera at a very basic level, eg. 24 fps crystal sync? No need obviously for any kind of in-camera exposure metering etc. Just interested to know what might be possible. A lot of the older SRs must be getting to the point where circuit boards could start to fail.

Sounds like a an exciting project Niels. I'm sure many here will look forward to seeing your film if you end up posting it here. I'd love to see a pic of your steadicam rig. Do you find that it is much better than, say, a large gimbal, for what you do on Super 8? I will be shooting some rolls of Super 8 in the next week or so. Last time I shot Super 8 was a few years back (on a Canon 1014 XL-S), for a wedding. The couple were really happy with the film I shot for them.

This looks fantastic to me, Heikki! Well done! I'm so inspired by this. I will show this to a few people. I really like that this project went with film. Film suits this particular project very well due to the interesting colours and textures of the furnishings and embellishments etc of the interior of the church alongside the natural light.

The same thing happens with lenses, too. Sigh. Oh, this is a sharper lens! Fixated, intense look. Oh .... okay, you respond. Um, sharper isn't always better. Tell Rembrandt that higher def is always better? Er ....... yeah. We've now reached the unique and unenviable position in the history of modern technology where we don't actually, come to think of it, want to see the little pores in the skin of the on-screen talent, and the dust particles, micro-crumbs, and wipe marks, on the table at which they sit ... and all that.

King Kong, the original version (1933?), and the second re-make with Jack Black in it. The 70s version of King Kong which in my opinion was a great film and a ripping adventure yarn with a lot of unique qualities didn't feature the movie-making plot detail but instead went with having one of the main protagonists played by Jeff Bridges as a stills photographer complete with Nikon model F and motordrive, several lenses in his camera bag, etc. A good film from Dino De Laurentiis.

'Super 8' 2011. About some young filmmakers with a camera, etc. Not feature movies, but TV series from the 70s that I loved (as I saw them just as I was getting into filmmaking myself): An episode each from 'The Brady Bunch' and 'Gilligan's Island', where the regular characters make a movie. I remember 'Day for Night'. Haven't seen that film for years. I saw it on late-night TV as a teenager.

Yes, we are very fortunate to have David's expertise here. I've learned so much from his expert advice. Sadly a lot of people seem overawed by mere numbers. 6K better than 3K automatically because it's a bigger number, where as it's the look as perceived on the screen in front of you that's the important thing. It takes courage sometimes to stand by your convictions and tell someone that no, the number represents definition, yes, but the 'smaller number' camera actually has a better look for that specific purpose and for that project, on the screen. How do you argue the case? That can be tricky. People are often funny when it comes to cameras. Ego can come into it, my camera's better than your's etc, but how do you define a good look? It takes the eye of an artist to know what's the best look.

La Reina de los Lagartos looks good! I think it would have been even better if they'd de-sharpened the lizard a bit, to fit in with the Super 8 footage, but it was a tongue in cheek film so it sort of works. With Super 8 cameras, I'm wondering what is the best way to go with a back-up camera. Pay a bit more for a fully rebuilt model, or just get some lowest cost smaller models from ebay and have them repaired, and chuck one or two in the side of the camera bag in case the main camera develops a problem during filming. For now, I will take a long a 16mm wind-up such as a K100 as second cam for such an eventuality. I'm thinking the Canon 514 is a good little back up camera for Super 8. BTW, I've come up with two terms I've started to use for my business (on the side, at the moment): Film gig, and 'dig gig', for digital filming jobs. I don't know .. maybe it's been used before .. but there you go.

The point Heikki mentioned is a hugely attractive thing about Super 8: just easier and cheaper to do because you would only need a 'skeleton crew'. By that I'm sure he doesn't mean a crew so old they're nearly skeletons. Haha just joking. 16mm is a great choice for a feature too. But inevitably it would mean more money and more crew because the camera just inherently needs more assistance (loading mags, pulling focus, etc). The other thing about Super 8 is specifically the look of it. I'm pretty sure just like 16mm it could be made to look stunningly beautiful and interesting on the big screen (and on big tv screens).

I don't know about union opposition but the advent of AI and where this is all going is interesting. I'm not knocking AI as I did really enjoy the latest Indiana Jones movie and apparently it used it. I wonder if there could be some return of interest in a completely photochemical process and projection of film prints as it makes it fairly clear that the film was made by people not machines. Well, AI could still be used in pre-production and concept etc. If that matters to enough people.

The other thing, and let me have just a small rant here, is that the average output of most videographers I've seen around the place is the utmost drivel I've ever laid eyes on. Hackneyed video kitsch, just about all of it. And that's what people want on their videos ?

The very success of video is sort of making it less appealling. Very few people want to take a risk and get into real film. Plus, film takes time and effort to learn, and mistakes with it are costly. If you've got the film cameras you may as well specialise in them.

I'm thinking about getting out of videography. There's too many people doing it, and not enough people seem to care if you shoot with a really nice video camera with huge dynamic range, and all that. Most people seem to only see 4K, 6K, 12K ... woo hoo ... all those K's, I'm blown away, dude .... I'm wondering if I will go back to my original plan of only shooting film. Everything I've shot on digital for the past year I could have shot on film just as well, and what I've done would have generated more interest if I'd shot film. Don't worry, I'm not down about it at all. I do other things in life and the digital idea was to try and make what I do more appealling to the average person out there but the fact is most people now either can't afford to hire a videographer or they want to hire the gear and figure out how to shoot movies themselves. And who can blame them, it's fun. Or they are utterly happy with their iPhone footage.

That film looks watchable to me, Heikki. I'd buy a ticket and go and see it if it comes to a theatre near me.

Does anyone know if image stabilization of Super 8 in post production, getting rid of the vertical jitter etc, leaves behind tell-tale traces/artifacts such as blurring in the image? It would be great to do some tests of Super 8 footage and then view it in a movie theatre and see just exactly how it looks on the big screen. Also, how does one get hold of a Logmar Super 8 camera? I wonder if they ever become available.

What is the potential for features shot on Super 8 in your opinion, including films for showing in cinemas? Regarding feature-length Super 8 films I've only ever heard of Steven Spielberg's first movie (which was shown at a local privately owned cinema) which I think was called 'Firelight'. With modern post improvement of Super 8, getting rid of jitter and weave, etc, and with top quality audio, I'm thinking that a feature in Super 8 could work. 16mm for feature movies doesn't have the clarity of 35mm, and it can come across looking like a soft, not so good version of 35mm. But Super 8 is so definitely low definition and grainy that it would be obvious to all that it wasn't trying to look like 35mm. It would be marketed as shot on Super 8. That's a name that has meaning for many. Does that make sense to anyone else? It does to me. Obviously, it would only suit certain scripts.

Very exciting project, Robert. Welcome, and thanks for telling us about the camera. I will look forward to seeing your footage!!

Yes ..... well, I hope that one day soon the client will cover the cost. Otherwise it's an expensive hobby, and maybe a once-in-a-blue-moon hobby at that. So far I'm shooting digital gigs only, except for a brief foray back into film a few months ago. I still say it's all worth it. Film is such a great look and it's a lot of satisfaction to film with it. But then again digital is very satisfying, too.

That's how I feel about that word too when it's used to describe the use of film. It's not a particularly useful description or indicator of what film can do. It's usually used by someone who is not into film themselves. I'm also not greatly fond of the term "vanity project" to describe a movie shot on film. Why is film more 'vain' than anything else? I think Aapo has it right. You shoot film because you like working with it. It's not better or worse than digital. It's as simple as that.

Shot on the Alexa LF. I purposefully didn't find out anything about the technical specs before seeing the film. They got a great look. The film emulation worked well. With so much incredibly convincing CG imagery involving Harrison Ford's face I guess it was simpler to shoot it digitally. Would have been nice if it had been shot on film like the earlier movies in the series but oh well they did a fantastic job anyway. A truly enjoyable cinema experience.

Best film I've seen at the movies for a long, long time. Very much worth seeing. Wonderful cinematography too. Looked like classic old anamorphic glass to me. A brilliant achievement for the filmmakers. Went and saw it with my wife and two friends and everyone adored it. Great ending too.