Jon O'Brien

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.

Good to read your story too, Tyler. Good memories on the whole, for sure. Film is just so much fun. Best wishes with all your filmmaking.

I will just add a bit more. I did have a Bolex 16mm in high school, as I was able to swap my still camera for my friend's 16mm. He was new to the school and I couldn't believe it when he said he had a 16mm camera and he tentatively asked would I be interested in a straignt swap. Would I??? But, yeah, too expensive to run back then so I didn't do much shooting on it. But I loved it. I remember the day the cheapo stills tripod I had it on, way too light, fell over, with the Bolex on it! Oh the distress. The other thing I wanted to say is that lately I've decided to get back into Super 8. What for me was once a slightly despised, jittery format has now become, with the help of digital scanning and no longer needing an old rattly film projector, a great film format that looks so good when people watch it on their phones. The level of grain and slight imperfection is perfect for this viewing medium (and most videos are now watched on phone or tablet). So, it will be good to be back shooting Super 8. Just hope Kodak keeps making film!!

While not wanting to turn Daniel's thread into a "I remember when...", it's interesting that your experiences sound quite different to mine. I lived in what was then a relatively sleepy, provincial area and everything I did I had to come up with all the energy and research myself as my parents didn't know anything about movie cameras or filmmaking, and nor did anyone else I knew (my dad knew a lot about still photography and lenses etc). There was no internet and I didn't until some years later have any contact with other filmmakers. The only film to shoot on that I knew of came from a camera store and it was expensive. I posted the film away for processing and had to wait about 2 weeks to get it back. It was a difficult wait. I then studied Film & TV in high school and fortunately the public school I went to funded the filmmaking. We got to the point of shooting 30 minute long sound films and it was great that I didn't have to fund the filmmaking. Still very grateful for that. But ultimately, after putting up with years of difficulty or funding and making movies myself I concluded that filmmaking was just too expensive and I decided to quit making movies. I'd earlier planned to be a professional cinematographer. But there didn't seem enough of a career in it back then and I didn't really want to move to Sydney to be a film student. I got back into filmmaking in 2016 when my ultimate dream, a 16mm and/or a 35mm camera, became affordable. The other thing that happened along the way is that digital cameras got good enough that the images didn't look like garbage any more. So, I was drawn back to filmmaking again. But basically I quit film because in my heart of hearts I wanted to shoot 16mm as a kid and I just couldn't. Way too expensive. I thought video back then was a joke. It looked awful, even on TV. True. If film can't be possible for a certain project for whatever the reason, even if it's the obvious first choice for that project, shoot on digital. I'd pick the Arri 35. Or a Canon C300 Mk III which is less to hire.

Yeah .... but, .... film was always expensive. It was when I started as a 12 year old. Almost no one shot movies because it was all so expensive. I had a good job in the school holidays so could afford to shoot on Super 8 every now and then. Virtually no one and I mean no one shot on 16mm unless it was a TV station .... or maybe at the Film & Television school at North Ryde in NSW. On extremely rare occasions someone at an amateur moviemakers club would have a 16mm camera and everyone else sat in the darkness as the 16 mil projector rattled away watching on movie nights with jaw-dropped amazement at the crystal-clear clarity of the 16mm ... and dreamed of one day owning such a camera (and a projector, and to be able to afford the film, etc). I actually think there's more young people potentially able to shoot Super 8 today than there was years ago. But on the other hand there's a recession happening ..... I still say film will be fine.

Nice shot aapo! Great lighting and framing.

Was in Melbourne the other day and was delighted to see Super 8 film for sale in a vending machine, outside a shop (closed at the time) that specialises in real film. Not just the usual suspects but Tri-X and Ektachrome as well. I hope this business survives and does well. They sell t-shirts promoting real film and many other items too. https://filmneverdie.com/ Lots of younger people would love to shoot film. The interest is there. The older generations sort of got seduced too much by the digital sirens I think, and in a lot of ways never bothered to look back. In spirit at least film is thriving.

Looks great. Does anyone know how many XTR XCs were made?

Epically cool, Stephen. Love that big chunky Sachtler the Aaton is on too.

I can't really add to what's been said above. Looks just the ticket for some serious filmmaking. After being rather heavily involved with digital cameras for the last few months (which I'm grateful for, but my first love is film, not digital) it sort of brings to mind that line from Crocodile Dundee. To paraphrase: " that's a camera! "

Dear Joerg, You score a full score of 100 points!! THAT is it!! Thank you :)

Hi, my first ever movie camera was a Bell & Howell Super 8, bought in the late 70s. I saved up my pennies and eventually had enough to buy it. My dear dad fronted up to the camera shop in Caloundra, Queensland and bought it for me. He was much more expert with cameras than me back then and it was thought best that he did the choosing and the buying. I'm lately getting a bit nostalgic about this old camera that was long ago traded in on a Canon 1014XL-S. I wouldn't mind getting an old one and putting it somewhere in the house, like on a shelf or mantelpiece. Doesn't have to work. Can anyone help me find out what the model was? I can't ever find the exact one on the internet and I don't remember the model number. The closest I can get in model type is the Bell & Howell 2123 XL, such as this one if you scroll down: http://www.mrmartinweb.com/movie.html However, my camera had a fixed, pistol-grip style handgrip (non-fold down), and a slightly bigger lens with maybe 6X zoom. It was a silent model, taking the smaller non-sound cartridges only. It was a good camera and it would be great to get another one. Thanks.

I like that it has a Super 35 size sensor, not so-called 'full frame'. Of course it doesn't really matter what the sensor size is, and really I suppose who cares, but I would go chasing after digital cinema cameras that have Super 35 sensors because I happen to feel most at home with that. Lenses are easy to get for it. Everything is cool about it in my humble opinion.

I mean uploading videos to one's own videography business website. I don't mean uploading to cinematography.com. Just to be clear. Cheers.

What is the best way to upload great-looking video clips to your website? I don't want the clips to have the compressed look with pixelated areas, and going out of focus, which is what I'm getting at the moment. I'm using squarespace but so far can't get the uploaded clips to look good enough. Does having a paid Vimeo account and embedding video from there fix this problem? I've researched this question and have noticed a lot of people complaining about the same problem. When I look at websites from established video production people their showreels look absolutely perfect. How do they get perfect video on their websites without compression?

Is that an old piece of processed film ie. not fresh film? It looks dusty, and seems not very flat but it's hard to interpret what I'm seeing. I wonder if at least part of the problem is that the film has a slight curl in it from edge to edge. Is that a very serious scratch down the RHS or is that a strip of light glinting off the strip of film? To me something just doesn't look right with the bit of film.

G'day Dom, I can't remember if I've asked you this before but do you service Kodak K100 16mm cameras? I have two. One, the single lens version, seems fine and works well so far, and the other with a turret winds but doesn't run at all.

Just some quick ideas off the top of my head. You can't figure out the focus from the side viewfinder. You could measure the distance to the subject with a long tape measure for the closer shots, and estimate the distance for subjects/scenes further away. The focus scale on the lens may not be accurate but it should be reasonably close to accurate. The side viewfinder should be good enough for framing. It should have a dial marked in feet or meters for changing the angle to the camera so that the framing is close enough to the final image that appears on the film. You can focus, can you not, by peering into the opening for the eye level focuser? Then you have everything you need! I wouldn't be worried, just take courage and start shooting -- there is really no other way to learn how to use what you've got to work with. Mistakes and things that could be done better are inevitable but you will learn fast, as film as you know is expensive. One thing you could try to check the framing is to put some kind of slightly opaque material in the film gate area and look at the image formed on it. Some kind of plastic sheeting material with a frosted look or even a bit of baking paper in a pinch but it might leave paper fibres in the gate area. It would be very fiddly to do and I don't think I would bother. Best of luck with getting started in real film! For exposure you should try and get some kind of good, second hand exposure meter. Sekonic make good ones. You may find that you will need to open up just a bit more than what the exposure meter indicates, perhaps half a stop or so, but this can really only be known from your own tests, and depends on what you're shooting. I'm tending to find that a slight bit of over exposure can be a good thing, and can be corrected for later in post. But by all means make your own tests and probably best to start out by adjusting the aperture to the indicated level on the meter.

Still being new to colour grading, could someone explain to me how colour management in davinci resolve differs from just ordinary manual, garden variety colour grading of, say, scanned 16mm film?