Jon O'Brien

Thanks David. I've done a fair bit of research on this but it can be difficult reading through reams of old posts, with anecdotes, jokes, asides, etc, and it takes a lot of reading to get the facts. Let me cease beating around the bush and just ask: is an old beat up Arri 2C with the usual factory film gate on it (is it called simply standard 35mm?) the way to go if one wanted to get as close as possible (on a budget) to circa 70's era cinemascope and get a film that in general principle looks as close as humanly possible to features that Lucas, Spielberg (and in Australia, Beresford) made? Of course not talking artistry here at this stage just brushes, easels and paints if you know what I mean. A man needs heart, story and inspiration but he also needs to know what is possible. Yes, I was speaking purely of a photochemical process. Would that 'old beat up 2C' need a different kind of film gate put in it to emulate/be a fair copy of the cinemascope cameras of the period I mention above? Any advice much appreciated.

Interesting discussion. Let's say, as just a pipe dream (sitting perhaps on the porch, staring quietly into a peaceful sunset), the old cinemascope roadshow system was re-introduced (is that what it was called?). You know, the circa 1960's/70's/80's business of 35mm prints being delivered to cinemas everywhere, where they were projected on vertical-orientation 35mm projectors with cinemascope lenses and making use of an optical soundtrack to the side of the actual film print image. What would be the best way to film these productions? I know it has to be 4-perf and that anamorphic lenses are required. But would you use cameras with academy film gates or Super 35? Or wouldn't it matter, since you would just print both onto 35mm prints with the optical track on it, blowing up or reducing the image optically during printing, as needed? The in-camera negative doesn't need to leave room for an optical soundtrack does it?

Will rental companies rent their lenses to put on your camera body. Including Panavision? This seems a cheaper option. Some more questions: are 2C doors easily interchangeable, so that if you need a desqueezer door and find one on ebay it will work on any 2C body? Can PV lenses work in PL mount with an adapter, or vice versa (I suspect not). What is it you see when you look through the 2C lens mount and one of the bow tie 'bows' has a small circular indentation ground out of the actual mirror, on the edge where the 'bow' meets the central ring of the shutter. I'm not talking about the circular metal centre piece of the shutter - I'm talking about something slightly off centre. An adjusting screw is in this pit. You can see this in the YT video, more easily seen in 2nd half of video. Speaking of Star Wars (the first one made), I watched some of it the other day and was not impressed at how it now looks. Apparently George Lucas originally wanted a slightly misty-eyed look to the picture but the DP refused. It looks like George got what he wanted eventually however. The light shining off C3PO now looks like you've just spent the last 1/2 hour cutting up onions for lunch. I much prefer the clean, natural look of the original Tatooine scenes.

Excellent points. Thanks. Off to ebay to have a look around :)

Thanks David. Great to have such advice, as always. Here are some more questions I thought I would ask anyone out there. What, approximately, do anamorphic lenses cost compared to comparable spherical lenses suitable for 2-perf? Is the difference an astronomical one (not alluding to Lucas' 'Far Far Away' here!). Also, does anyone know if the Pan-Arri 2C cameras were modified to S35 gate? What is the best page/article to go to that succinctly explains Academy and S35? Wikipedia good enough? I will dutifully go there and do my lessons. Just curious. Another question if anyone is motivated to answer: is it easier to find a desqueezer viewfinder for an Arri 35-3? All this is, sigh, probably moot as I will never be able to afford doing any of this ..... however if nothing else it will give me artistic inspiration I hope. You know, that's an important thing, not to be underestimated.

Thank you, I truly appreciate any help. Can anyone suggest an alternative to the BlackMagic camera that is comparable in price and final result, able to possibly be shown in a cinema though not needing to be top notch? I looked into the Canon EOS system but looked maybe a bit expensive for the producer (put it this way - I'd like to have a lower priced option up my sleeve just to open the discussion of budgeting side of things) as this costs $400 a day AUD. Maybe I should be looking at a DSLR.

There's no getting around hiring top of the line silent cameras for a narrative film but I found out the other day George Lucas used an Arri IIC with panavision anamorphic lenses for B camera on the original 3 Star Wars movies (and other films). For instance the shot of the Tusken Raider jumping on the Bantha in the original SW film was shot on such a camera apparently (by GL). These cameras were modified by Panavision and of course used their rent-only lenses. But is it possible to shoot anamorphic on a IIC today, with non-Panavision lenses? What sort of viewfinder is needed to unsqueeze the image? The regular viewfinder doesn't do this? What type and brand of lenses for anamorphic are available and are they all PL mount? Maybe this is all unfeasible and 2 perf IIC is the only way to go.

Thanks, that's good to know. I've been looking at a documentary that was released in 2009, and as far as I can tell it was filmed on a Panasonic HD varicam. Looking at the 'making of' section on the DVD, it looks a fairly large, slightly unwieldy camera, but able to be held on the shoulder for handheld shots. It says Panasonic and HD on the side but that's all I can clearly see in the shots. The documentary is what I'm using as a guide for what I want to do and what is possible. The documentary was made for DVD but was also released in cinemas, which is where I first saw it. I remember the quality on the big screen was fine - no problem. Though not quite top cinema quality but good enough. How would the image from the circa 2008 top of the line varicam HD compare with the BM pocket camera? If the BM can do as well or better with clarity of image on the big screen, it would definitely be fine for what I'm looking for. Thanks for any advice.

Would the BM pocket camera suit the following? A made for DVD documentary/movie that will consist mostly of people in outdoors locations, speaking to the camera at times, talking about their work and showing them at work. The film would be shot entirely in daylight hours. The aim is for DVD release but with the possibility of being shown in a cinema and projected in largish halls/churches etc on smaller equipment. If it was shown at a cinema, the image would not have to be the usual top feature film quality - just good enough for a very limited release doco at a cinema. It's not aimed at winning any film awards, just hopefully winning hearts. Surely for this sort of thing it's not necessary to hire top of the line cinema equipment. The only concern I have is it was actually shown in a cinema. This may be a condition that the producers insist on - that it's good enough for that. What am I looking at for this project in a digital camera? The BM pocket is affordable. I've only shot on film before, up to 16mm (as an amateur), except on very low cost digital cameras for my own use.

The TV mini-series Catching Milat (2015) was excellent. It had wide appeal. It wasn't quirky, eccentric, it told a straight forward story well, it had pathos, human interest, dramatic tension, it was something anyone of any age or background could have watched and found something in it entertaining. I think some of our movies are too esoteric and aimed at too small a group - which to me seems to be the inner city left a lot of the time. That was what I was trying to say.

I agree Dom, I didn't mean to imply that shot on film alone would draw in an audience. I meant really fine films that have broad, popular appeal - that's a quality that can be designed into a production. It seems to be a quality we have somewhat lost though I think a lot of people in the industry can't see it or don't know what to do about it. Or they just don't want it, preferring an insular revolutionary progressivism because it's assumed everyone else is gleefully looking for that. But they're not. Times are a changin'. Because it's been done and done and then done again. 2003's Ned Kelly was, I thought, boring and unbelievable. Why not paint Kelly in a different light? Kelly as hero. Oh dear, not again.There's also a tension with truth going on there. Kelly was a criminal, not a hero, and a powerful movie would be honest about that. I think we can do better over here. We once made really good, popular films. If I'm wrong, point me to a great film of universal timeless appeal and I promise I will watch it ... as long as it's not Lantana. As long as it's not a modern progressive theme of the overly-urbanized tradition that's been done a hundred times over. Can't swallow any more of it. Would choke.

I think part of the key to perfection in creativity is an element of imperfection. If we are limited in some way, that's actually a blessing. An oil painting is a highly limited thing. It has a frame around it. It's terribly small really and it can't move or change. The limitations/technical absurdities of film are a gift. Us humans can get into problems when we have things too perfect. Video/digital is an almost perfect medium. It is rock solid steady, getting sharper by the year, we have absolute flexibility with its technical ability, it's all so easy and neat and affordable ... but it is boring. Boring is a real problem.

Hmm, that's a pity. Could be an opportunity. A market vacuum, no one supplying a product, with an audience there waiting, and all that. I believe 'the common man (and woman)' does care about real film, and knows enough to know that they're being short-changed by digital cinema. But, well, ..... who knows. For general interest, should anyone care, here's some other great Australian movies, all beautifully photographed: Picnic at Hanging Rock We of the Never Never The Irishman The Man from Snowy River Crocodile Dundee (yes, it was a good, well-made film)

Film catches/depicts sunlight better than digital in my opinion. Sunlight reflecting off and giving a glow to natural things like people, animals, flowers, foliage, trees, earth and water looks better on film. Darks, shadows, highlights - these things are important artistic factors too but in my opinion plain old sunlight is where film is king. Sunlight is a pretty, magical thing that is not fully appreciated by the digital sensor. I don't think it ever will be. If you like Mozart or Bach played on a good acoustic violin, the proper effect is just not quite captured by a fiddle with an electric 'pick-up' on it. After all these years, with all our technology, we still haven't gotten away from the magic of acoustic music. In the world of movies, film will live on because, artistically, it's such good value. Another place where film shines over digital is in capturing natural lamp light - as in light from a kerosene lamp. Also, art is difficult. He or she who would make good art must somehow pay. To use a musical example again, classical guitar requires more of the artist than 3 chord rhythm guitar. It's a longer, harder road to walk. Film costs more, and takes more care.

Does anyone in Australia shoot on film for feature productions, as in 35mm and S16? I've spoken to a few people in the industry and am told that it's all digital now. I've tried to get interested in digital but just can't - I must be dinosaur. Am only inspired by film. People say it's story story story but it's also tools. If digital is your choice, go for it but it doesn't do much for me - I don't even know why. I still have dreams of making a feature film one day but time is running out. I remember some of the fine, entertaining, creative, artistic films of broad appeal we made here, like Sunday Too Far Away, Gallipoli, Breaker Morant, and Mad Max I and II.

Ah, great information. Thanks. This is a great website. What about the Arri III. I see that the IIC has a separate motor underneath but where is the motor on a III? Is it a separate item needed to be attached via a flat plate, or is it inside the body? The reason I ask is that the ebay ads I've seen have been quiet on this point. Also, going back to the IIC. Is a mirror with a "small chip in the corner, just visible in the viewfinder but not seen on film" a big problem, or no problem at all?

What prime lenses are/were commonly used for the Arriflex 35 IIC three lens turret (for instance, as seen in photos of Kubrick in early 70's with his IIC)? Anyone know what it costs to have this camera converted to hard front with bayonet mount? PL mount would be more usual no doubt but Nikon mount could provide more affordable alternatives.

Sorry, just to avoid confusion (lest anyone wonder if I'm a klutz), my mention of the lens on my digital camera has nothing to do with this discussion. I'm talking here of Super 16 mm film.

I'm doing just as you describe. I have a small video camera and have started taking some shots and am now figuring out what to do about editing. My video camera has excellent sound recording capabilities, but the lens is extremely basic. Yes, there's a lot to learn about editing but I'm keen.

Thank you for your help. I'm trying to save money, so am seeking to learn as much as I can without making expensive mistakes. I also don't have much time, and have to work out what lenses I need fairly quickly. So, the sooner I can get advice on all this the better. I don't have experience with digital editing, but do with actual film and a splicer.

Hi, if you get your S16 film back from the lab, shot in negative stock, now in digital form ready to be edited etc on a computer, and you see that the image has some very slight shadowing or vignetting in a corner or corners, can you, on a home computer, re-frame/crop/zoom-in-a-bit the image, so that the version 'released' to the public for viewing on the internet or digitally projected has the shadowing or vignetting eliminated? I realise some image quality will be lost, due to an enlargement of the grain. But in filmmaking as in nearly everything compromise appears to be the way of things in the arts.

That's good to know that there shouldn't be any hassles shooting S-16. Thanks everybody. Thanks too to Volker. I guess if, full frame, there is a little bit of shadowing in corners I could get the image scanned just a bit closer (zoomed-in a bit/cropped slightly). My main interest isn't reversal processing and film projection on 16mm projector, but shooting negative stock and having the image digitised by the lab, and putting the finished movie (after editing/post production/soundtrack etc using a computer) on the internet, and hopefully also projecting digitally in a small cinema. I wonder if, having got the digitised image back from the lab, and there is shadowing or very slight vignetting in the corners, whether the movie can be re-cropped at home using an editing program on the computer before being 'released' to the public. Maybe I will ask advice on this in another forum area, related to telecine which I'm supposing is what I'm referring to here. There is much for me to learn! My background is in reversal film and home projection.

Could anyone give me some advice on what lenses would work with a Bolex H16 RX5 camera (C mounts), in Super 16? I'd be happy for any advice you can give me ... even if you know of just one or two lenses that will work. Will a vintage Kern 18-86mm f2.5 zoom lens, designed for the Bolex in reg.16, work for S16? Regarding primes, anyone know a good wide angle that will work well for this camera outfit? Thanks. Please feel free to mention any good Nikon (or other good SLR still lenses) to C mount adapters you know of, and where to buy.

What is the difference between a cinematographer and a camera operator? No, this is not the first line of a joke. I've always wondered. I guess I could google it but some insider knowledge would be good. Also, another question: how do young camera operators who might be somewhat self-trained get knowledge and experience with cranes and things like that - I suppose the only way it can be learned is on the job .... assuming you get a job in film.

Yes, I'm certainly not one to advise young film makers. So, young film makers, don't listen to me. I'm just in love with film, like nearly everyone else, and keep thinking up ways to keep those old cameras purring away. I'm not saying I don't like digital. I think it's great. It's opened up so many opportunities.