Jon O'Brien

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.

My discussion, above, is obviously aimed at 35mm film production. Apologies to all professionals who don't use this medium or are not interested in it. New here, and forgot I was now in a general forum area, not exclusively film oriented.

Assuming one has lots of experience in Super 8, or regular 8, a bit of DSLR maybe, or 16mm, and whether or not has gone to film school but either way has done a lot of good film making, learned how to shoot film, and most importantly is something of an artist with a camera/lighting etc .... and over time at a 'real job' has saved enough money ..... I wonder if those whose dream is to be a DP/cinematographer in cinema release feature film production (or whatever else in the professional film world working with actual film not digital) would be at a distinct advantage if they got themselves an 'entry level' 35 mm film camera and gear, and started putting together, say, a 5 minute portfolio reel of 35 mm. I speak from a position of total ignorance, so am casting around for truth, that I may learn more. I'm middle aged, and am probably fast running out of time to be thinking of getting into cinema release movie production. Especially in a world nearly all gone over to digital. Maybe the camera might be ancient/not very good, have a few image stability problems, and the film stock expired or otherwise not top notch. But has anyone ever been taken seriously or been given an opportunity as a feature film DP who has never shot on 35mm? Has any cinematographer been hired for a 35mm shoot who only every used maybe S16 in the past? Okay, the chances of being 'hired' aren't great, perhaps because of networks/nepotism, etc in the arts world, but nevertheless, I wonder if getting (comparatively) low-priced 35mm gear and saving up like mad for film stock might be the way to go, as soon as practicable (as soon as affordable) - which, of course, might take many years to get to a position where you have disposable income to spend on your true artistic interests. So, to cut a long story short, get into the actual technical work as soon as you can of the medium you are long-term aiming to use (not including 70mm, which I think would be impossible for any individual to afford, unless maybe they were Richard Branson or someone similar).

The solution to all this might be to own a Bolex, Scoopic or similar camera for personal use, to get into 16mm film making and learn how to use a camera well, and if you can eventually get to the point of making a feature film for cinema release, rent some Arriflex 35 or S16 gear for the shoot. Or buy and then sell the camera afterwards. By the way, although a lot of people say 16mm (and film in general) is an ancient dinosaur that is fading away, what happens if, contrary to popular belief, film starts to make a big resurgence? Will Arriflex, or anyone else, still have the machining skills and technical knowledge to get back into making great, professional 16mm cameras again? Or will it become like Stradivari and Guarneri del Gesu violins, endlessly maintained and re-used by the top pros? This is said partly in jest. I'm not seriously comparing Arri with Strad!

My apologies if this has already been discussed on this forum ad infinitum, but what if, instead of regular 16mm, we are now talking S16, does all the above advice still apply? Are there any problems added when one considers a Bolex H16 that has been modified to S16? Also, in adapting a RX camera to S16, does the turret need to be moved over a bit to the side, to re-center the middle of frame under the lens, or can the turret stay where it is provided one is using the Nikon lenses?

Thanks Volker, I will send you an email.

Great information, thanks Dom. I didn't know any of that. What do you think of the Bolex EBM, compared to spring wound Rex-4 etc? I don't really mind either way, though the idea of spring wound appeals to me. I had an H16 non-reflex years ago. I'd like to make music 'videos' and short films for the internet, hopefully also to be shown in a small cinema I know (rear projection digital) if I can talk them into it. I know one of the people who run it. That's the dream anyway.

Thanks Richard and Robert, this is very encouraging information. Cameras with lenses are incredibly expensive, so I'm looking around for a Bolex body to put my Nikon lenses on. At the moment I'm looking at an EBM and even an H16 M on ebay. The EBM doesn't come with battery or charger so I would need to get those. The M doesn't have a viewfinder so also looking into that little problem. Very interesting article in Falconer Communications. I knew that John Dykstra built up his own camera systems but didn't know about the Nikon lenses. I know they used Nikon slr cameras for filming a special effects sequence in Indiana Jones 2.

Hello, can you use Nikon 35mm SLR still photography lenses with Bolex H16 turret or SBM cameras, for standard 16mm (not S16)? If so, what problems arise? I've read here how Rx adjustment is needed in lenses for Bolex reflex cameras down to a certain focal length, but is it not too costly to have the Nikon lenses altered? As an aside, can you use Nikon lenses on 35mm cameras such as Arri (perhaps I should ask this in the 35mm section). Also, why are movie camera zoom lenses so physically large? Most of them look enormous compared to still photography zooms. I made lots of Super 8, double 8 and a couple of 16mm films in my teens and early twenties, and seeking to get back into 16mm. My longest running films were up to 25 minutes so I have some experience in film making. Thanks, Jon