Jon O'Brien

I need to find a good script from a writer. At the moment I'm thinking more along the lines of 16mm for a feature though. Super 8 might be a success for a cinema release feature, but everything would need to be done to maximize sharpness. Super 8 looks great on a phone or tablet screen but on the big screen .... tests would need to be done.

I'm busy at the moment as I'm also a musician and teacher, and do some videography on the side, but will soon get back to my own filmmaking projects.

Funding from organizations and/or from government grants, for a feature movie, is necessary. You have to motivate people and convince them. Takes time but often good things happen. Well, that's how I see it.

I love those two videos from FFP. Very much worth watching.

I find Super 8 very easy to watch. I don't know why that is. Where as a lot of high def video footage just looks unappealing to me. It looks so boring

I haven't done dissolves recently on this camera, however I do know that it is a great and strong camera and I once did a lot of filming with a 1014XL-S, hours of footage. I used the lap dissolve several times and every time it worked perfectly. These days however I'd probably be inclined not to push my luck using in-camera functions such as this, and just do the dissolve digitally in post. A couple of years ago when I last filmed with my old 1014XL-S the cartridge jammed on me while just filming normally at 24fps. I soon fixed the jam though by taking out the cartridge and whacking it on my leg twice. Another thing to try if the cartridge jams is to turn the uptake wheel on the back of the cartridge clockwise until snug. All the best with it.

No way. Didn't read the details.

Looks great!

We need the same thing here in Australia.

What are some examples of tack-sharp C mount triplet lenses for 16mm cameras?

Also, what are the Ektar lenses like, generally? The ones made for the K100 camera. Are any of them triplet designs? I have a 25mm f1.9 which seems to be pretty good though maybe with a slight haze depending on the light, and a 25mm f1.4 coming soon which I'm hoping will be good.

I've heard that the Ektar f1.9 can suffer from yellowing from the lens coating. Is it expensive to have this yellowing removed?

If a very rich person (apparently they do exist) with a philanthropic interest in the arts, would take an interest in new film and film camera development.... Who knows. It would be a good and fun project.

Very exciting news. I wonder if Australia will ever film again on real film for some of our feature movie production? And if we can get some 15 perf film IMAX theatres back. Haha. I wish.

Using this FOV calculator:

https://www.omnicalculator.com/other/camera-field-of-view

I got a result of 12.5m if using a maximum focal length of 105mm which is what I've got at the moment for the C300 with sensor size of 26.2 x 13.8mm.

For a 10m wide stage, that will do. If necessary I can crop the image, as it's being shot on 4K.

Stage width is 10 metres.

All the best with your new business, Luca.

I had a look at your website. You got your start as a film projectionist and film camera mechanic. That's wonderful! We need more people like you.

Shoot film!!

Yes good point Dom about the trig, I will ask for the stage width from the venue. It's funny I wasn't good at maths at school but later on really got into it, but then later after that I forgot a lot of it. Haha. Too much into the art side I am I think sometimes. Thank you David and Phil, your posts are very helpful and very much appreciated.

City of Stars. There's so much that I can see. Who knows? - Hurwitz, Pasek, and Paul.

On 8/31/2023 at 10:01 AM, Jon O'Brien said:

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

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.