Jon O'Brien

The old magazine 16mm cameras look really fun, and that's a great point that a lot of them probably saw not much use at all. It would be great if the price for processing was pretty comparable with the normal daylight spool cameras. But then again the temptation to start collecting such cool little magazine cameras would be high ?

Hi, I'm off to Melbourne in June. Whilst there I want to try and soak up a bit of that wonderful Melbourne culture I remember so well from when I was a kid. Can anyone here who inhabits this fine city recommend any Melbourne cinemas that specialise in real film projection? I'm thinking old classic movies I guess. Hopefully there is a theatre with a film projector still running. I don't mind if it's big and grand, or a small outfit just showing 16mm films, etc. There's not much of real film here in Brisbane. We went to Sydney last year and tracked down pretty much the only cinema there that still has a film projector. Saw 'Newsfront' (1978).

The advantage of 2-perf, if you can get hold of a camera, is that it's cheaper to run and has slightly more obvious grain than 3-perf. I'd rather shoot with 2-perf, myself. I like to see a hint of grain in the image. The larger frame area of 3-perf can be close in look these days to the pristine look of digital footage. But maybe that's what you want.

Yes Memorylab does beautiful scans. Callum emailed after I asked for some advice and said yes I just needed to open up half a stop more with the last two rolls. The slight underexposure can be compensated for in Resolve and I'm really looking forward to doing this. I'm so impressed with the crisp look of the 4K scans.

Nevertheless, I need to do some tests on the next roll. Do some shots with the indicated exposure level from the light meter, then the same shot opened up a stop, and then another shot opened two stops. I think the film might need a bit more light.

Thanks for that advice Andrew and Robert. I got two reels back the other day and wasn't completely happy with how they look, but I realised the monitor I was viewing them on had the brightness turned down too much. I turned up the brightness and the footage now looks much better. Haha. Sometimes the solution to an apparent problem is so simple.

My film footage so far tends to look a bit flat. Like I underexposed it. People who see the footage say it should pop a bit more, I think is the word they use. Is this purely a Resolve thing and not a scanning thing? In other words can I brighten and liven up the image just by clever use of Davinci Resolve (assuming the film is exposed correctly)? I guess I should put a bit on youtube and then people will know what I mean. Generally, so far I'm a little underwhelmed with the look I'm getting. It could be better.

Interesting topic! Is it possible to see examples on Vimeo or youtube of 16mm scans from the different Australian businesses such as Memorylab and Cameraquip, to compare the look of the different scanners these businesses use? It would be great to get an idea of what is possible in terms of look. I'm always chasing a more vibrant, saturated and lively real film look and haven't found it yet. I don't have anything online myself yet but am getting there. I'm really curious about getting the best look possible out of digitised film.

Hi Volker, Good to hear from you! The Bolex is going well. Yes I would be interested in some Wratten ND 0.60 and 85 filters. Should I PM you? Regards, Jon

I remember those bull ants, from when I was a kid growing up in Victoria. In Queensland we have the infamous jumping ant, which are possibly more aggressive.

For those who don't know, with the bottom set of two photographs you can train your eyes to meld the two pictures together into one. It can take a while until you get the knack, but once learned you can always do it successfully in just a jiffy. You should feel your eyes cross slightly, and see a central image in 3D, flanked by a non-3D image each side. You don't need any gadgets to get a 3D image.

If it doesn't work and needs a lot of attention I wouldn't pay more than maybe a few hundred dollars at best (maybe $400?) but then I'm not a camera repairer type. As a display item only I'd say it's not worth much. I guess it depends on general condition, though.

A sort of post-modernist, or post-post-modernist fashion affected the classical music world too. They went through a long phase of insipid light strings with insipid light bows and bowing. They call it historically informed practice but it's less favoured now than it once was. Less was more I think the thinking was. But less is just less. If artists are happy with less then less they end up giving.

I remember about 6 years ago many commercials on television (Australian tv at least) favoured a milky, almost overexposed look. It was a fashion that someone obviously thought looked cool and 'different'. It looked washed-out and about as nice-looking as weak, milky dishwater to me. The comment below the article on minimalist art is, to me, spot on, where they say that it looks lazy. But for me the whole effect doesn't work so well because of digital cinematography. Such low light cinematography often reminds me of poorly-lit studio tv camera work from the 70s: flat and textureless. If you're going to have low light, put something in the picture that has some life to it, somewhere in the frame (eg. a candle flame somewhere, or an open fire). Minimalist art can be minimalist in entertainment. But to each their own.

That's a very good idea, but I will leave that for a future experiment. I briefly went to the beach again today, with my loyal camera assistant, my wife, who came along. I shot 100' of 250D. The sun was getting low and the light was just a bit warm, but the colours at the beach were pretty good . The ISO on the light meter I set 2/3 back from 250 because the prism takes a third and the Bolex shutter angle another third of the light. That won me a bit of extra f-stop space to move; not that it ended up that there was too much light. I set the camera to 48 fps and left the shutter open at the normal angle. The light meter was saying f22 (with the High Slide in) but I opened up one stop more because of the slo-mo speed. So set the aperture to f16. The only thing is that I had committed the great mistake of leaving the tripod sliding plate on the Kodak K100 from the other day. So I couldn't use the tripod today, with the Bolex! I won't make that mistake again. Always, always, always put the tripod sliding plate back on the tripod, as soon as you get home. Don't leave it on the camera. I hope the shots turn out fine. One never knows with film until you get the footage back. Next thing is order some more 50D. And get a ND8 or 16 filter for the Bolex and the Kodak.

Some great ideas here. Doug, yes I might end up filming at 48 fps and that will take an extra stop off the light input. Waves at half speed should look good. The camera I will be using, a Bolex Rex-5, does have the variable shutter so that is a definite option. When filming at 48 fps does a slightly closed down shutter make much of a difference in terms of motion blur? I don't have much experience of this yet. Good idea, Gregg. I will get some of that black paper camera tape. I don't currently have any. I have heavy and sticky black gaffer tape but I guess that will do for now if I can find a suitable ND filter (see below). Lighting gels I don't currently have, but will look into experimenting with that. Maxim, also a great idea. I checked out the book of Lee sample filters and they seem to be currently out of stock in Australia but I will keep looking. Joerg, yes will have to track some Wrattens down, probably on Ebay. I needed something quickly, in the next day or two, but it looks like I can't actually get anything quickly. So I'm going to have to film in lower light and do some of the other tricks mentioned above, such as film at 48fps. I went out today to get some more footage but this time not so much luck. I first went to two camera shops but both had absolutely nothing I could use. Both had just really dark ND filter, such as ND1000! That is virtually pitch black. I was looking for something around ND 8 or 16. They did have variable ND filters that went from something like 2 to 6 stops (can't remember) but either way these were unusable as obviously I need to know exactly what ND number they are so I can figure out the exposure. Back out there again tomorrow to get these shots. I will figure something out.

I've not used an A7SIII but I have filmed with an A7III and I must admit the look of the image didn't do much for me at all. Much preferred the image from the Sony FS7 which I've also filmed with. After all it's a much bigger and more expensive camera.

Mirrorless cameras with a DSLR-type body design such as the Sony A7SIII and the Canon C70 have a good reputation amongst filmmakers. I've heard the DSLR/mirrorless design is more prone to overheating though. All the best with your video making.

Won't look pretty, and the filter will be permanently damaged by contact with the front of the lens. And they're expensive. Yesterday I finished a roll of 50D down at the beach and people were coming up and asking about the camera (yesterday it was a Kodak K100 with 25mm lens). Very polite and curious and looked obviously cheered to see someone filming with real film. When I said the camera was 16mm they seemed to know exactly what i was talking about. General knowledge of film and film cameras seems to be rising in the community. It's a good vibe when people come up and ask interesting questions and seem really keen about film. Very encouraging.

Good advice Aapo. Yes longer term I will have to locate some gel filter material (soon!). For now I'm wondering if I should pop into a local camera store and buy a stills lens ND filter and gerry rig it to the front of the lens with gaffer tape. Anything to get the shot. Can't wait until I have more 50D. I do have ND filters for a matte box but that's a huge outfit more along the lines of a Hollywood production.

Hi, I'm filming down at the beach soon, for a website banner loop reel. I need some good shots about 30 seconds each of the surf rolling in, maybe seagulls flying past, that sort of thing. I only have 250D at the moment and was hoping to film in full sunlight. Last time I went into a camera store to ask do they have gel filters I can cut up and put in the Bolex the salesperson said those things we stopped selling back when the dinosaurs were still around. What can I do? If necessary I can film in lower light at the end of the day but interested to hear any ideas. I could buy filters on ebay but that will take ages to arrive.

And nooo ritardandos.. (Darth Vader voice, with gesticulating finger extended in gloved hand).

Shot on 35mm apparently. It does look great.

I think it's regrettable that creative jobs are threatened by this new technology. Yes it looks like jobs in CGI and other forms of digital image creation and concept art are going to start disappearing or already have. But I find the new technology profoundly boring and wouldn't be interested in movies made using it. I like creative works made by real people and will pay to go and see those, if they are worth seeing. Perhaps that's just me but I think there is a rising movement out there that is rejecting all this digital crap being generated.

Can't help but feel that real film has another ace up its sleeve. It would be difficult for AI to use a film camera, and to even make a nice batch of film. Yes, it could do just about everything else ..... maybe. But film on film? Nah.