Jon O'Brien

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.

We did indeed go to Melbourne and had a truly great time. I love Melbourne! Didn't see any film projection but hopefully next time. Went to the Victoria Markets, walked around the city and some of the fantastic arcades, and also got down to the Brighton and Mentone area where I came from. We had some of those fantastic Melbourne fish and chips near Ricketts Point, Beaumaris. I brought a tiny shell back, from the beach. Ahhh .... a part of my heart shall always reside in that place .....

Always it seems to me projects/movies requiring a bit of extra gravitas tend to suit being shot on real film. Something about that extra bit of movie-making street cred kind of helps get you over the line. Just anecdotally of course I do get the impression that at least a fair percentage of cinema goers are starting to notice and they are starting to care if a major movie is shot on film or not.

Yes I wouldn't doubt that. That's the good thing about Regular 8: generally, the cameras and projectors are on average better made. Though, Super 8 cameras on ebay can come at a very low price. The other good thing about Super 8, which I should have put in my list above, is that the very name "Super 8" seems to have great meaning to younger people these days. It's the magic word that conjurs images of real film .... and all that.

In my opinion Super 8 has two benefits over Regular 8. 1) For weddings it's beautifully fast to load a new cartridge. The chances of something going wrong seem, to me, roughly about equal with Regular 8 (cartridge jamming as opposed to double 8 film 'unspooling' or doing something equally horrific in the film compartment). But I could be wrong about that. 2) The slightly jittery look of Super 8 where the image kind of dances up and down a bit is actually, these days, a bit of a charming feature which lets all seeing the image know that, yes, this is indeed real film and not just a slightly low res video with grain added (even though you can add this effect digitally, in post). In some ways though I wonder if Regular 8 is cheaper. But I've decided to go the Super 8 route. Or, that is, to go back to it, since Super 8 is where I started. I intend to offer Super 8 mainly for wedding cinematography.

Having used the Canon EOS C300 Mark III camera I can say that as far as I can see it has excellent dynamic range and its images can, in post, be made to look pretty good, comparable to film. In my opinion.

In the US, Pro8mm hire out their Classic camera which is a fully rebuilt Beaulieu 4008. Some of the hire cameras have crystal sync.

Thanks Uli. I really value your knowledge and experience with these cameras. Do you think this battery set up would also work with the Arri 35-3 (also 2perf)?

I agree James. And in time, if they can get somewhat closer to the classic Agfa kind of look that would be fantastic.

Nice footage Uli. Looks so beautiful. Well done! I have a 2perf 2C with Nikon F mount that Bruce from Aranda converted for me a few years ago. I've been so focused on other projects I haven't gotten around to filming with it yet but I do have film for it. Lately I'm thinking it would be good to get it converted to PL mount. I guess Daniil could do this. Could you tell me Uli, what type of battery you use for your 2perf 2C?

Typing too fast. Make that cinematography.com. ?

Thank you David Mullen ASC, I think that's a good policy of not naming names of the ones that don't look good. However could you possibly name two or three other makes of camera, some models of which brand similarly have a suitably natural image burn-out look at clipped areas in the image? I'm sure others would be interested to know, too. I ask only out of genuine curiosity as you are very knowledgeable. For instance the Canon C300 MkIII camera is said by some cinematographers to have a dynamic range similar to the Arri range due to its dual gain sensor, but of course you may not have used this camera, so I understand if you can't comment on it. Thank you Sir for your sharing your excellent knowledge and experience here at cimematography.com.

That makes perfect sense Karim. Because that is, traditionally, what it is.

Anyone else got any good name ideas that are an alternative to "full frame"?

Haha, good one Karim. How about calling so-called full frame "Vista" or "Vista35"? I guess it sounds a bit pretentious but at least it's a better name historically speaking than "full frame" for motion picture production.

BTW, I've got nothing against DSLR style or similar mirrorless designs. They've got much going for them. They're so compact for a start. Use them if you want but just be aware that 'full frame' is a stills term and that a Super 35 is technically not a cropped sensor historically speaking. You might as well say that "full frame" is a "pseudo-wanna-be-65mm-frame-that's-not-the-right-size-but-it's-close-enough." I'm not advocating for that, but that would be an example of putting it in an equally patronizing way. Super 35 is cool and it's no second brother to 'full frame' by any means.

I guess the way they see it is that "life began with the Canon EOS full frame DSLR", and anything that came before that, be it on film or on some kind of video setup, is of no further relevance to the modern world. The attitude just comes across as a bit ignorant, if you know a bit of the history of motion picture cameras and of format development. Best to come up with a term other than "full frame" if you're in the business of moving pictures. There's this contemporary starting point with stills cameras. A lot of cinematographers now want to shoot with stills-looking cameras and they tend to use stills terms. Come on, we're not in the business of still photography.

Hello there, I've come across this thing in digital film circles more than a few times where a Super 35 sensor camera is said to be a "cropped sensor camera." Not only this, but it's said by many cinematographers out there that "full frame" is the best way to go, Super 35 being seen as perhaps a bit of a dud or maybe with the suggestion there that it's not quite 'as good', since it's not as big. But since they are referring to an historical aspect, that of the "full frame" 35mm SLR, they should really be aware that, historically, what they're going on about is from the perspective of still photography. Apart from Vistavision, which wasn't all that common, the great majority of 35mm motion picture film capture was with vertically-oriented 35mm film with a Super 35 sized frame, or the smaller variations on that theme due to an optical soundtrack added to the side, whether 4-perf spherical with black bars at top and bottom giving a sligtht widescreen effect, or 4-perf ananorphic, giving an almost square-shaped frame that was then doubled in width by the projector lens after the image had been photographed in a 2x squeeze effect, giving an even more widescreen image around 2.40-1 or thereabouts. So, in motion picture circles, "full frame" isn't really the right term for this sensor size. I guess it will have to do though. What else could it be called? It's just that knowledgable cinematographer's shouldn't really refer, if they want to quote history, to Super 35 sensors as "cropped sensors." Also, there are advantages and disadvantages to both Super 35 and so-called "full-frame" sensors. You use what works best for you.

Those are excellent reasons Aapo and you've obviously chosen exactly what was needed for the job. I was meaning more general use, as in, for all jobs and all types of shots and by preference. It was more a comment regarding camera makers and the designs they choose for their camera bodies. If I was stuck in a tight space yes I would grab a DSLR body if it was needed. Though with a big battery on the back even a DSLR is often only a few inches shorter than a 'cinema camera' (actually I wasn't specifically referring to 'cinema cameras' but was also thinking of the older 'camcorder' type camera body design that seems to have 'fallen out of fasion'). I've heard the DSLR models can be more prone to overheating, but big deal, if they work for the purpose then they are a fine choice. I was speaking more of general fashions, not so much about very practical and necessary choices for specific shoots or specific shots. Good on you for choosing the equipment that you chose. Clearly ... to quote the guy from the Indiana Jones movie ..... you "chose wisely". Jon

Sure, whatever the customers want. That's the way to make an actual living from having your eye stuck to the back of a camera. My inner irk though is all the young dudes with DSLRs and mirrorless cameras, with the big huge monitor attached at the top. What's the go with that? Since when did a movie camera look like a stills camera? I don't get the DSLR thing. Other than that, yep I'm happy these days shooting digital. I do like a viewfinder though. I only use a screen on top or to the side if it's the logical way to shoot for a specific shot, like on a gimbal. To each their own of course. But I don't get it.

Cool. Well that's good then. If you shoot good footage, people will want to hire you. And that's what I'm finding ?

'twas the second model of camera I owned. Filmed a lot of stuff on one of those. Good dependable camera.

I wonder if having all the digital gear (or hire and know how to use it) but being able to shoot film, and advertise yourself as having the digital gear but hey can also do film origination if you want it, gives you slightly more street cred than the average filmmaker/videographer. I do think people who regularly shoot film are at a slight advantage somehow. Or maybe I just like to think that that is so. One thing is that if you are used to film you will tend to produce 'video' that has more of a natural film look. That's how I see it. Why is that? Because if you are putting up with shooting on film you must have a good eye or you wouldn't bother. That's my theory. But, as the saying goes, sure, I'm biased.