Tim Halloran

Watching projected film and watching a digital projection are two totally different physiological and psychological experiences. I myself prefer watching projected film because it is a richer experience because of these differences. I find my body and mind much more engaged because of the different things my body and mind are "doing" while processing the information of projected film. I do also prefer the look of things shot on film, but I could put up with digitally captured stuff as long as it was exhibited on film. Sadly, this is quickly going away. In regards to the experience of others, we may reach a point where people just don't care, but digital projection will simply NEVER be the same as film. Tim

Hey Chris, Thanks, all great tips to think about, especially the point about the ND filter. These are all practices I'm sure I'd pick up eventually but the ND thing is good common sense and something that I won't have to worry about. Cheers. Tim

Does anybody know specifically how iris fades were accomplished, prior to digital editing? Was it always done with the optical printer or was it done with something in front of the lens? The reason I ask is there was an "iris vignetter" that was made for the Bolex, shown here: And it was supposed to do this: But Andrew Alden says in the Bolex Bible that the iris vignetter doesn't really work, that it just gave the effect of defocussed brackets coming in from the sides rather than a circular iris fade. So, how were iris fades done professionally back in the day, and what would be the best way to do one today, outside of a digital effect? Tim

A long lens shot that I've always found interesting is the one in Hal Ashby's Coming Home, where Jane Fonda is sitting on Jon Voight's lap on the beach boardwalk. The scene is intercut, or preceded (?) with a scene of two surveillance guys watching the couple. So it is implied that the exxagerated long lens close-up could be the effect of the binoculars or telephoto lens on the camera that the guy is using to watch them. But accompanying the shot you get a clear intimate recording of the dialog from their conversation, dialog that the surveillance team couldn't possibly hear, but that is nonetheless narratively provided for us. It confuses spatiality and the privileging of narrative information which consequently reflects the tense anxiety of the Fonda and Voight characters at that moment. Good work by Haskell Wexler and a nice result. Tim

Yeah, why discuss anything anyway? And who cares if it has been discussed already? We're having another discussion here, now. You worried about bandwidth usage or something? But I'll bite--why continue to talk about it? Because, maybe we can wake some people up to what is happening and possibly, just possibly, change the course of the "inevitable." Alternatively, this on-going discussion may inspire some to rethink the possible and consider setting up some more local theaters that will carry on projecting film. So you can more easily find theaters in your area that are able to properly project film. Then again, you should probably just give up. Tim

If that is your only criteria for assigning value then, okay, you win. But this completely ignores the unique quality of the experience of film viewing vs. watching digital projection. The simple truth is that one (film) requires a more active engagement of the body and mind and one (digital) is experienced in a much more passive manner. Watching film requires that you physically and cognitively process alternating individual images and darkness while digital projection is a solid stream of variable light. You can see how one requires more work on the part of the spectator and thus can be said to provide a more "engaged" and ultimately more satisfying experience. EVERY person who I have spoke to who has reflected on the difference between their experience watching movies projected on film and digital projection (both "nostalgic" recollections and back-to-back comparisons) have said that the digital experience is relatively more "cold," "empty," and "unsatisfying." We seem to have accepted this argument by audiophiles who have argued for decades about the qualitative differences between analog and digital recorded playback. Why are so many people unwilling to recognize and acknowledge this same parallel distinction when talking about cinema? Too dazzled by the blockbuster spectacle, I suppose, to reflect on the evidence of their own experiences. But again, the tragedy is ultiamtely being perpetrated on those who will never know the difference. Tim

Well, this whole switch to digital projection is, frankly, tragic. It is going to forever change what it means to go to the movies and for those of us who know and have known the experience of real projected film, it will never be the same. And the worst part is that the latest generation of moviegoers, and those that follow, will never know the difference and the truly magic quality of projected film. Why should anyone ever go the movies again? If I can get the same cold, dull, empty experience with a blu-ray on a big screen in my living room, why go pay that kind of money and deal with all of the hassle? The real justice would be if this actual destroys their business because people finally figure this out. I'd be laughing my a** off. Tim

Film "analysis?" Assuming you're referring to critical analysis, I suppose you could start with Bordwell and Thompson's Film Art. Good practical formalist analysis of film. From there, it depends on what kind of analysis you want to do and what aspect of film you want to explore--formal aesthetics, industrial history, critical theory, cultural studies. The possibilities and avenues of study are immense. Tim

Experienced Bolex folks: If I want to try out some color filters (yellow to red) for B&W shooting with my H16, is it better to use the filter slot behind the lenses, or get a filter for the front? I’ve only ever used color filters out front on my Canon 814XL-S and Nikon R10 and those were big and a bit pricey. For the Bolex, I have 10, 25, and 75mm Switars—not sure what the front thread diameter is on those but they are small. Might be cheap, but difficult to find, if they can be had at all. And there is that 49mm filter adapter that some people sell. This might make it more economical. I also have a Vario-Switar 86-OE that uses Series 8 drop-in filters which are no problem to get and relatively cheap. But questions of money aside, and maybe the convenience of the filter slot, are there any advantages, or disadvantages, either way—filter behind the lens, or in front? Or does it matter at all? Tim

Email Mr. Elmo (Kevin Faulkner) from his site: http://www.mrelmo.co.uk/ "Help and info for all things Elmo." Or post your question on his forum: http://www.mrelmo.co.uk/smallformat/ Lots of guys that know everything about projectors. Tim

One very important sequence in Malick's Days of Heaven. Can't recall for sure if it was Nestor Almendros or Haskell Wexler's work but it is the scene where Richard Gere and Brooke Adams sneak off into the "night." Though well-known of course for its magic hour photography, shooting this particular scene day-for-night allowed for some striking overhead sunlight which produced these beautiful glowing "halos" on the characters. Amazing thematic use of the day-for-night technique. Tim

Can someone please explain this--how can a "player" not be available in some given "area?" I mean, this is the internet (the WORLD-wide-web), correct? I'm being serious--I don't know how this stuff works. And even if media can be blocked from certain geographic locales, why do it? Seems ridiculous and senseless. In Los Angeles and REALLY wanting to see that doc. Tim

Deluxe, Technicolor agree to combine film services--Variety article announcing the pact: http://tinyurl.com/4xdu5en Damn. I refuse to buy into the doom and gloom, but this is still completely depressing. Tim

And of course this applies to digital animation only--in hand-drawn cel animation, the "lighting" was, and is, conceived and rendered in the different individual painted cels. Not as difficult to envision during production because of the inherent qualities of the unique image, but much harder to wrap your head around when trying to describe the lighting "setup" of say, a scene in a film like Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Tim

Doh! That's the Hawaii-Five-O theme. :wacko: Dazzled by the works of that thing (and the UFO clip on the wall). Tim