Jon O'Brien

A good work of art reveals truth though. Perhaps that's what Goddard meant.

I'm with Brian DePalma there. To me the camera lies. A creative writer 'lies' too, but creative written compositions have been called "the most beautiful lies." Not really lies at all, that's being sort of tongue in cheek. But creative people are in the business of deception to some degree. Just think of live theatre. We want to sit back and be told a story and not care about how it was cobbled together. The camera routinely conceals authenticity and truth a lot of the time, a simple example being framing a shot 'way out in the remote countryside' that avoids showing the busy metropolitan motorway just out of frame (and with dubbed sound of course). We live in a time that likes to believe in hard scientific fact that everyone agrees on. Of course such a thing as objective fact and truth actually exists but which expert do we listen to? So often what is presented as fact is heavily influenced by how we interpret what we see, and what we believe to be true. Images are easily misinterpreted too. Two people can see the same scene and see different things. Well, a lot of words maybe to get a bit philosophical about an aspect of creativity.

The thing about low-energy art is that it can lack energy.

This lighting trend seems to be a type of minimalism that is prevalent across the arts at the moment. It's a low-energy approach and I think is supposed to be cool, and Bohemian, ... or something. Fair enough, if that's the look you're going for.

I didn't know that Stuart. Thank you.

Does anyone know if you can get an optical director's viewfinder that has 2.20:1 aspect ratio? There was a model by Cavision that has 2.20 but it doesn't seem to be available anywhere at the moment. Alternative is of course an app but I'd also like to play around with an optical viewfinder.

That's sort of what I want to do. Combine artistic imagery with classical and classically-inspired music such as played by the Kronos Quartet.

I love it. Renews my hope I can do some arty little films soon on 35mm. All I can say is well done and please make more.

That's interesting Phil. Because when I see 70mm film projection, as good as that, I see flicker occasionally, a little bit of weave at times if I notice it, and just simply beautiful 'optical' photography and projection that is so much more magical than digital. But then that's what I see. It seems you don't see that. I see something that looks, to me, nothing like digital. Nothing like it. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I use the word 'optical' in a non-scientific, vague sense. Because really I don't know how else to define in words something so beautiful as photography made and projected on film. I see the difference between film and digital. I see it. How else can I say it. It's not the idea of it that attracts me. It's literally the look I like. If people can't see that difference I don't know how to respond. I'm not trying to one up you. I'm trying to communicate an important truth.

My IIC has a seven pin socket on the camera motor, and the cable connects with this and has a 4 pin XLR connector at the other end. I will very soon be soldering a fuse case with 5A fuse into a length of electrical cable, with 4 pin XLR connector at one end and terminal connectors for the battery at the other. I will be using a standard 12V, 7.2 AH sealed battery. I'm advised that I must solder the positive wire coming off the battery to pin 4 of the XLR connector. Between the positive terminal and pin 4 goes the fuse. The negative wire off the battery goes to pin 1. Pins 2 and 3 are apparently ignored as they're not needed? Now, bear in mind, I've not done this before and have no idea if this is correct. It's what I've been told. This is a suggestion only and I'm not recommending that you or anyone do this. It's what I've been told to do and I'm going to solder it up and will report back to let you know if it works. My IIC is fitted with 2-perf gate and ground glass and they appear to be original Arri parts.

I'm not a pro cinematographer, but those fluid heads look like pretty recent ones. In earlier times they'd often have been geared heads possibly? So maybe a fairly recent photo? Yes looks like a 'standard' Panavision 35mm anamorphic set up.

Well, none of them look like Scope (1.2:1). It's difficult for me to see as it's in the shade but one of the gates looks a bit like 1.85:1 or thereabouts, which I find unusual. I presumed the usual practice when shooting 4 perf spherical was to shoot 'full' academy frame and crop to 1.85 either in the print making process or in the projector. Or maybe I'm just not seeing it well enough in the picture. Or is it a 2-perf gate (I'm referring to the bottom RH gate)? Doesn't seem quite to be 2.40:1. What do the labels say?

I beg your pardon, I mean Boris. I can't edit my original post for some reason.

I've got one too Bruno and am hoping the both of us can learn some good things from this thread. There are some brilliant technicians here who regularly advise. My question at the moment is can I get away without a fuse in the battery line from a Bescor 12V battery to the camera. There's basically two main gates that are generally found in a IIC, and both are 4 perf and off-centre slightly, due to the practice in the past of making room for an optical soundtrack about 2 mm wide to the side of the image. One is Academy, roughly 1.33, and the other is Scope, approximately 1.2, so nearly square in shape.

And final 'aerial' battle sequence was first class and an incredible technical feat for the day, and any day.