Jon O'Brien

How are film prints made today, for example to 35mm anamorphic or 70mm for theatre projection? Who does the work? Is it always with a DI, and what does it cost? I gather that these days shooting on Super 16 would look 'pretty good' with a DI, and blown up to 35mm anamorphic. That is, if you like to see a bit of grain.

Hi Will, which model of Scoopic is best in your opinion? Thanks for any advice. These are great looking shots Kevin. Well done.

Yes, drawing attention to a weapon would be a great use of a flare. I love where raw sunlight does sometimes 'splash' across the lens/across the film, when filming outdoors and into or near the sun. I agree, it's part of the texture of film. Film loves sunlight, and at such moments it's like the film is absolutely doused in the magic of light. I suppose I was commenting on the regular use of the horizontal blue flare in many shots, for instance in interior shots where it wouldn't necessarily happen naturally but is artificially created, but I understand if people love that look too.

If people like anamorphic flares that's fine. I don't understand the big interest in them, and people adding them in using lights at the side of the camera, except as a sort of light hearted joke perhaps -- or as a 'homage' to some famous film. I do like the slight horizontal flare when the train pulls into the station in Doctor Zhivago (1965) but that's the only example I can think of that, to me, adds a little extra zest to a shot. It could easily go without. I prefer the look of spherical lenses these days. I don't know what's come over me.

Thanks Dom. Great to have your input. I've seen Uli's recent film and love the look of it. Uber cool is all I can say.

I don't know if Gladiator (2000) qualifies as a 90's style looking movie but I must say it has a fantastic look. Watched it again recently (twice, once with the commentary from Ridley Scott and the DP). Shot all with spherical lenses on 35mm. I don't know how it was transferred to DVD but it has a look to the colour and texture that I really like. Looks so much better to me than many of the latest movies at the cinema. Looks almost like it was scanned from a print.

In my previous post, somehow Tyler's quote disappeared before I hit submit. So, the quote is from the article that he linked to.

Great quote: "To me, the cinematography of a film is like the music in a film; it's there to express a feeling ..."

A difficult question to answer, really, that I asked above. It requires someone who knows both lenses well. Has anyone got any opinions about either lens? Always keen to hear your views.

Thank you so much Gregory for this information. I didn't know such huge cranes were used for control of sunlight. At first I was surprised that this is necessary, but on further thought it makes sense as it allows the middle of the day to be used on external daytime shoots. You don't have to wait for the light.

For Super 16, what really is the difference between the Kern Switar H16 Rx f1.4 25mm, and the Kern Macro Switar H16 Rx f1.1 26mm? They both are said to cover Super 16. They are both Rx, thus good for use with the reflex Bolexes. There is only a tiny difference in speed. Why the enormous price difference? The former I've seen in the low hundreds and the latter in the low thousands. Can one generalise and say which of the two lenses is generally sharper and makes altogether more appealing images? Or are they both good?

Shooting on 50D and putting in a 0.9 ND is sounding better and better, rather than try and use 250D. Or shoot in the shade and as the light is starting to fade in late afternoon. I did think about closing the variable shutter down 1 stop Doug but I've not tried this before. I know the interesting look they got in the opening battle scenes in Gladiator were filmed with a faster shutter, where mud flying up in the air had a 'staccato' look that heightened the drama of the action. Do you know if a faster shutter will mean that pans or other movement will come out looking unusual? Shooting at higher speed is a great idea too.

Quite a few cinematographer show/demo reels these days have a similar look, with the very slow motion tracking moves of the camera in nearly every shot, towards or away from the subject, then in the next shot to the left, then to the right in the following shot, and so on. Always these 'moody', super-suave moves. Then come the drone shots. It's cinematographic kitsch.

The pulling out of the filter holder regularly is going to add to the risk of dust or lint getting onto the filter and it will be difficult to check for it. A matte box really is necessary for serious filming.

That's a relief. I will get a heavy cloth and drape it over to minimise light getting in, just in case. These filters are not easy to find. I've been looking for 0.9 and 1.2 ND which would be ideal (3 and 4 stops) but so far can only find second hand 0.6 (2 stops). The alternative is shoot on 50D.