Carl Looper

So if Super8 was cheaper than Super16, how would you actually go about making Super8 match the quality of larger formats? C

That's beautiful Lasse. Thank you very much for sharing. Very much appreciate what you are doing there. Have been inspired to go ahead and have a go at building a camera myself. I'm interested in buying into what you are doing there, so keep us up to date on progress. cheers Carl

The Kinetta scans of Super8 demonstrate the feasibility of shooting Super8 in a way that isn't just for a nostalgic vintage look, but on the contrary, shooting Super8 for a fresh and youthful look. Much of the way we read Super8 is by how it has looked through standard definition scans. It has been the scans which have produced the vintage look more so than the film. Something similar occurs with silent era films - not only through the transfer to video, but often doing so at the wrong rate (eg. 24/25 instead of 16). I saw a restored print of a Charlie Chaplin film a few years ago now and it was just stunning to experience the film in the way that audiences would have originally experienced it, all those years earlier. It was extremely beautiful, it was as if it had just been shot yesterday. It was so fresh and alive and invigorating. Not vintage at all. It was life. Watching the Nixon transfers is the same thing. Even if on vimeo. It's as if it was just shot yesterday. There's life there. It is so surprising because for so long we've been told that there isn't any point transferring Super8 at anything much more than SD. How completely wrong that has turned out. The more pixels you use the better it looks. Information theory needs another look - or at least that theory which transfer systems have been using for the last thirty years.. C

For sure. They are not the same animal. A decision to shoot one or the other is a creative decision. Which animal is right for the project at hand? Or what project might a particular animal inspire? Given a Super8 camera and a couple of rolls of film, what might can be done with such, as much as, given a particular script/project what does one shoot it with. Carl

Film needs good reasons to be used. Not just empty declarations of faith. There are plenty of really good reasons to use film. Plenty. Use it for those reasons rather than some line Kodak is selling or because Star Wars is using it. Find your own reasons. You will enjoy it much more. And there are also just as many good reasons not to use film. Plenty There isn't really any way of generalising how you might come to a decision. Every project is different. With different agendas and different criteria for success. Cinematography isn't just something that happens in the cinema. It happens everywhere, across diverse channels, from industry to home movies, to art galleries, to the internet. I expect there are more people using cameras today then ever before in history. Not that they are necessarily interested in the art of it, but it's there. Everywhere. When there was only film, the decision was easy. It was the technology/industry that had effectively made the decision for you. While video looked like a dogs breakfast, blown up on the big screen, the decision, in terms of cinema, was easy. The technology was still making the decision for you. Now the cinema screen is not the only venue for an appreciation of cinematography or film making in general. And it hasn't been for a long time. But of course, it is special. It provides a space for a lot of people, all at the same time, which has it's own peculiar dynamic. Film festivals are a particularly good example of this. It's not only the films on the screen that are important but all of the people with whom you can talk about the films. The cinema is special. It's a meeting place. Even if nobody talks to anybody. It's that sense of being outside of oneself. Out in the world rather than hidden away at home. But even if one decides on the cinema, as the venue, the decision regarding medium is no longer a technologically determined one. Even if the projectors were all digital. Digital might continue to define the delivery channel, from vimeo, to TV, to the cinema screen, but it doesn't yet, and shouldn't define the mediums you might use to originate for those channels. It just means the decision making process may not be as easy as it once might have been. That's probably a good thing. There's a hilarious line in the film, Elizabeth, where the astrologer, John Dee apologises, in response to anxieties from Elizabeth over the uncertainty of the future, he says something like: "Astrology is still more an art than a science" Carl

Hi George, I've been out of work many times, so I appreciate your situation. I once lived, for six months, on the street, with no income at all for the entire time. I would not wish that on anyone. But it is also that experience which provides me with two things - one is no desire, whatsoever, to find myself anywhere near that situation ever ever again. Nor wish it on anyone else, or cause it to happen to anyone else. The other is somewhat strange. An appreciation of the world at large - the way it looks through hungry eyes - a very beautiful place. In no need of lights cameras or action, but not in any way diminished by such. That's just my opinion ... but then what else would it be. Carl

That's right. Experience. Not formulas. But it's also a catch 22, as they say. If only those with experience need apply the cinema would eventually grind to a stop. To get experience in the first place you have to be brave. To take a step into the unknown, and if it doesn't work, then try it again. And again. What is important is the actual step. The brave part. The "young at heart" part. The come what may approach. Otherwise you can't ever learn anything. To learn from mistakes you have to make them. Fortunately experience is something you can come to understand and appreciate quite quickly, without previously having any. Children acquire their first language without ever having had any previous experience in it. C C

Film did of course, spawn some larger formats.

Looks just fine to me. Digital is like a child with parent issues. It's having trouble becoming an adult and standing on it's own two feet. The more it compares itself to film the more it fails to understand how different digital really is from film. Digital is evolving, as a different way of encoding an image. It is still learning of course, but it really needs to stop posturing all the time. It comes across as completely insecure and silly. The art of digital has come a long way and will continue to mature. Film began in the large and spawned smaller formats (16mm, 8mm, Super8). Digital began at the other end - in the small, and is growing large. It is doing fantastic work. But for goodness sake, it doesn't need to keep suggesting it's a substitute for film. It isn't. It is it's own force. Carl

Many of these great directors began at a young age, with a brave outlook on life, and a willingness and ability to change the cinema rather than just fit into it.

By the 'young', I mean the 'young at heart', which fits all of these great directors. But yes, I also mean the young in the literal sense, to which the cinema will eventually belong, if we can inspire it. Carl

The issue with unused real estate in letter boxing reminds me a bit about D W Griffith, when he invented the close-up - how his producer argued against the close-up, complaining that he was paying for the entire actor. It's interesting how black is the norm for unused real estate in film and tv, whereas white is the norm for the web (think google home page). I guess it's because the computer screen is something associated with day time whereas the TV and movie screen is something associated with night. C

It is of course "Stranger Than Paradise" by Jim Jarmusch, not "Paradise Lost" Carl

All great movies. Not necessarily of all time. Times change. But some films kinda just lock in regardless of time. I love "The Wizard of Oz" But one of my favourite films of all time is "Down By Law" by Jim Jarmusch. Even better (in a very independant way) is his earlier one: "Paradise Lost". It changed me (for the worst or better I have no idea). "American Graffiti" - now that's something George Lucas can be proud of (in addition to the first Star Wars film). Can't understand the attraction of "The Shawshank Redemption". What is it about that film? They are all great movies but also very US-centric. But of course, what else would they be? One of the most intoxicating films I've ever had the pleasure to experience is "Last Year At Marienbad". You either love it, or you hate it, or both. But where are all the Woody Allen films? Every single one of them should be there - even the throwaway ones. But that would fill up the list A great list of films in any case. Carl Any film noir film of the 40s is a good film, even the worst.

I'm certainly interested in the realities of production, but it's in terms of the larger reality, that surrounds and creates those particular realities. C

Hi George, I'm currently producing a short independant 35mm film. By independant I mean I'm the the one spending money on it. My expertise is not in producing as such, but then what expertise do you really need when it comes to spending money? Jokes aside, I'm quite passionate about the kind of films I'd like to see made, which is why I decided to produce this film. Just a short one. And purely for the love of it. I'm not going to be making any money with it. I'm going to be spending money on it. Have already spent money on it. In the past I've worked on a number of film projects in varying capacities - mainly cinematography (which has been my main area of interest) and occasionally directing. I'm not sure what more I can add to that. It's my own film. It's being made on my own terms, and if I'm the only one who ends up appreciating it, I won't be bothered in the slightest. :) C

I date back to the first living cell that was created, however many billions of years ago it happened. The point that Spielberg and Lucas are making is one they think will protect their particular concept of cinema. Why did Lucas sell the Star Wars franchise? Because he couldn't pull his head out of a some ridiculous lost dream. Perhaps now he'll have an opportunity to go on that well deserved holiday and appreciate the real world in all of it's splendour. The cinema belongs to the young and brave - not the childish and insecure. Carl

Not all the Nixon tapes were flushed down the toilet:

Spielberg is one of the great filmmakers, even if his peculiar brand of brilliance has been almost consistently aimed at the middle of the road. He has given such movies a good name. At least that's my two cents worth. But he is part of an older generation of filmmakers to whom the new landscape may become increasingly alien. He is becoming a bit of a "fuddy duddy". Not that the problems are not there, but that the solutions are not to be found in what Spielberg and Lucas are suggesting. Lucas and Spielberg told USC students that they are learning about the industry at an extraordinary time of upheaval, where even proven talents find it difficult to get movies into theaters. Some ideas from young filmmakers "are too fringe-y for the movies," Spielberg said. "That's the big danger, and there's eventually going to be an implosion — or a big meltdown. There's going to be an implosion where three or four or maybe even a half-dozen megabudget movies are going to go crashing into the ground, and that's going to change the paradigm." Not just the ideas of young film-makers but the oldies as well - look at the last three Star Wars films. I'd call those films fringe-y, if by that term we mean artless. Of course, we can't really blame Lucas for that. He put his own money where his mouth was, so for that I applaud him indefintiely - but really - I could think of a lot better things he could have spent money on. Perhaps a holiday somewhere, visiting some art galleries and talking to some young people about their ideas rather than his own. Nostalgia is the death of cinema. Both Speilberg and Lucas come from a generation that inherited a solution to cinema's woes: that one way to bring an audience back to the cinema was to create big experience movies. This cost more money, but it also made more money, so in the end analysis, it didn't actually cost anything at all. The raided cinemea history for ideas and gave them a makeover. A great idea. Indeed visionary. But it's just one idea. It's not a rule. Now as far as what Lucas is suggesting it isn't necessarily going to be more big experience middle of the road movies that are going to help the situation - although one can always keep trying that. It's certainly not going to be the artless garbage that Lucas has occasionally engaged in. A much better suggestion is to forget about the whole big experience thing (3D whoopee) and start doing some more sustained intelligent work, on lower budgets, on what makes a movie really tick. Go back to the drawing board rather than relying on old formulas. Have a bit of fun with the cinema. Test out some new ideas. Do some R&D. Spend money on experiemntation - the more the better - indeed the more "fringe-y" the better. But on low budgets rather than mega-budgets. C

A DIY alternative to pin registration is to use open source computer vision algorithms, such as OpenCV. They provide a way to register individual captures, not just one film frame to another (in time), but multi-sample captures of the same frame (in space) to each other. The benefit of adopting such an approach is that the mechanical side of the DIY system can then become a little more relaxed, ie. cheaper. C

Here is why it is a good idea, even if it turns out to be Christopher's idea of what a wet dream might be like. Making a camera is like making a movie. It's been done before, but that's no reason to stop. If one were to make a new film camera, and why not (I can think of worse things that could occupy your time) then making a new Super8 camera is just as good a place to start as anywhere else. But a Super8 camera is also a good idea because a Super8 camera is the closest you can get to the convenience of digital without it having to be digital. So having nominated a Super8 camera as your project (whether for this reason or some othe reason) the next question might be why? There are plenty of fine Super8 cameras already out there. Well yes, but if you look at the proposed specs, there isn't any that tick all the boxes that this proposition ticks. The proposition is a better Super8 camera - not just another Super8 camera. I for one, would like a better Super8 camera. For many reasons. The proposition takes the idea of a Super8 camera (which remains a good idea for some types of projects) and gives it a makeover. What on earth is so wrong about that? If someone has the tools and skills to do it then good on 'em I say. It's a great idea. C

Another good reason for saying "film is dead" is to cut through some of the rubbish about film, for example, that it is "the primary acquisition medium for films with a reasonable budget". Good grief. What sort of argument is that? Certanly Kodak might like to push that line, as they do in the ad which started this thread. The big budget film. Big f**king deal. The reason film is used is not because you have a big budget for it, but because someone, somewhere, made that decision for whatever reasons, to shoot film. Some might be good reasons. Some might be the force of habit. Some might be that the digital alternatives are too hard to work out. And some might do it out of some sort of sense that because some big budget projects film use it, it must be good. But what about those who shoot film on a tiny budget? Why would they do it? The cost of film is an obstacle rather than any indication of it's merits. The better reasons film is shot is because it has it's own unique qualities (which I won't try an elaborate here) that could be lost doing it in some other way. In many ways it can depend entirely on the project. There are many reasons why you might not shoot film, other than wanting something easier to use. It could be the look of alternatives that you are after. Or certain freedoms that alternatives provide - such as shooting a work in the middle of Syria. Carl

Yes, film and TV are more like siblings. A very good point. I was thinking of TV in the sense of people watching TV in their lounge rooms versus going into town to the cinema. If it wasn't for World War 2, TV in the sense I'm using, could have indeed occurred a lot earlier. The war got in the way. By "TV being the offspring of film" I mean that film paved the way for TV. All of the important work was done in film, ie. not in the technical sense (electonics is it's own art) but in terms of what could be done with a moving picture regardless of means. For example, you could create stories! The vision the early TV technicians had was more like two way communication - a bit like Skype! Dick Tracy technology. They'd have to keep working on it for another 100 years before that eventuated. Carl C

The reason I'm saying "film is dead" is simply because I'm sick of defending the counter-proposition: that it isn't dead. I'd rather just agree with the idiotic proposition, that film is dead, than argue why it isn't. But if I had to argue it once more I'd say the reason film is not dead is because there are people, like me, who understand and appreciate it's exquisite beauty, power and history. It is completely and utterly different from everything that has sought to replace it. As it must be. But as soon as I say that there will be some jackass who will jump up and have a go at me about that. So I say to them - yes film is dead. End of story Can I back to enjoyingh film now or do I ahve to listen to another reason why film is dead. The salient point is that having died, many times, it has come back, time and again, from the grave. It doesn't matter why, or how. All that matters is that does. I know why it does but I don't want to necessarily share that in a hostile environment. I would rather say "yes sir, you are right. film is dead. it's been dead for a very long time." and then continue on working with film. If that causes them to scratch their head, then all the f**king better. C

Yes, the history is extremely interesting. TV is indeed a brinwave of the Victorian era. A very good point. My reference to Victorian Age technology was not a put down I was using - it was one thrown at me by a video cameraman arguing with my interest in film - thirty years ago. I guess I'm not being that clear. The whole point I'm trying to make is exactly the same one you are making. That it doesn't matter whether it was invented yesterday or 2000 years ago. The wheel is still as good an idea as it was 6000 years ago. We learn from history. We also change it. We can change the materials, eg. from paint to chemistry, or we can change what we do with the materials, be it paint or with chemistry. It doesn't actually matter. C