Jon O'Brien

As the technology gets glitzier and more amazing the film industry shouldn't get ruffled by it. In fact, it might be wise to start walking in the opposite direction. You might get more notice. Don't bother trying to turn cinema into some kind of gaming/cinema/VR blend. It won't work. Gamers will always prefer their games and their VR; and you will lose audiences for traditional cinema. Cinema is what it is. A lot of people think it is evolving. It's not. It will die away if it does that. Because it won't be cinema anymore.

I also feel a lot of people are bored with what Hollywood churns out now.

As someone above mentioned, what's happening is the same thing that happened to music hall, orchestras and stage plays. They're still around, and in certain circles they can still be a big deal, but they don't enjoy quite their former importance. In Australia at least a lot of young people are still very much into cinema. I don't think the future is IMAX. I think the future of cinema is garden variety, old-style smallish/average size-screen movies on DCP or if you're lucky 35 or occasionally 70 mm prints. All the other alternatives are too expensive. If you can't see a movie for about 15 bucks or whatever it's not going to work financially. Not enough people are going to care about a huge screen and expensive tickets. Story will continue to sell movies ... not whopping great big screens. I don't care for IMAX myself. I like a normal, average size screen, just the normal cinema experience, nothing flash, and a good story/good movie. I do happen to like things like the screen curtain rolling back, and a pianist or organist playing at the start, and things like that. I like the traditional cinema experience. And you know what, I think a lot of other people do too.

I think traditional cinema will survive. Less people might choose to study it at film schools and things like that, but it just means the industry is contracting a bit. Gaming and what not is expanding. In my opinion really great movies will still be made, and audiences will still love them and pay money for them.

The morning is darkest and coldest just before first light.

I feel you are right, just talking about some of the absolute drivel that is being made just now. However, as Darth Vader might say, .... I sense something ..... ... an opportunity .... (people still want entertainment, good stuff. Believe me)

Wow! It looks beautiful. Can't praise the look of this highly enough. Film is fantastic.

In the dim and distant future, if what we call civilization continues its stately course through history a while longer ... and when all the Arris and Aatons and so on are long worn out ... those who want to shoot film might have to go back to wooden boxes with individually 'hand-crafted' (on a metal-working lathe) cogs and wheels and associated mechanism. Just like filmmakers did at the dawn of the age of cinema. Okay, so the registration mightn't be so crash hot. But those old cameras worked pretty well. They got the job done. I like a tiny bit of gate weave.

I wonder if computer-guided milling machines might get better and better, to the point where spare parts for these old Arris could be remade at the correct tolerances and at an affordable price. The mirrors could be a problem. Still, perhaps there is a solution to this problem too. I suspect that film will survive for the foreseeable future.

No doubt with the scanning/digital improvements that we now have, Super 8 would look much better today if used for television than it did in the 1980s.

There was a regular television program in the 1980s, 'The Leyland Brothers', originally shot on 16mm, that eventually made the change to Super 8. I'm sure some of the Australian contributors here remember it. It was a documentary travel show featuring outback locations. I'm not sure it ran for all that long as a Super 8 show. Perhaps a year or less. The image was okay on the lower definition televisions of those days, a bit fuzzy at times though, but the sound wasn't as good as it had been with 16mm. Mike and Mal Leyland turned to Super 8 as a cost-cutting measure. It was a quaint and old-fashioned show. I remember thinking at the time that maybe they should have stuck with 16mm.

Saw an ad on tv last night where a few shots were taken with Super 8. This is the second time in the last year or so that I've seen an ad with a similar use of film. It looks so good.

In my humble opinion the look of this pic in the trailer at least doesn't suit a western. Too plastic, video-y and flat. A gritty look would be better. Would have looked cool if shot on Super 16 or 2-perf.

I've noticed that some in the stills world can concentrate on technical aspects of image that in the cine world could be considered overly fine and rarefied details of image science that few have the luxury to contemplate or study in-depth. After all, the individual pictures flick by at the rate of 24 or more per second. There's much to be done and considered and only so much time to give to the niceties of the single image. I'd say in motion pictures we tend to go with what 'just looks good' and if that means a simple colour science and a simple means of acquiring the end result then that's the way it just is. If I'm way out of line that's fine, just tell me. But I was struck with this thought while reading this thread.

That's good that you have these preferences. I started out not liking the imperfections of Super 8. I still get frustrated by the look of it but will gladly shoot it if someone wants me to. What I like is 16mm 'and above'. When shooting digital I'm trying for a look closest to 35mm film or thereabouts. It's just a look I really like. There's room for all sorts of different looks in filmmaking. The main thing is do what inspires you. If that means very high resolution and absolute steadiness of frame then go for it. I do like the odd static shot where the camera doesn't move at all. I also appreciate Spielberg's moving camera. There's a shot in Jaws I remember, on a pier, where Spielberg got the camera to move the whole way during a walking conversation. It really stood out that he obviously wanted such a long, flowing, mobile shot. Or the camera operator asked to do the shot that way.

Gate weave added to digital footage. Great idea! It looks good to me. As you say, just the tiniest amount.

Very true. A painting is a secondary representation or impression and a photographically-exact painting is kind of pointless to a lot of people. Impressions, not clinical exactness of detail, often tell a story better. A slight softening effect can bring a more painterly look which sort of works like a theatrical fourth wall as well. That's how I see it, anyway.

It depends, though. Sit through an out of tune classical music performance and I find myself yearning for perfection. I guess it's a perfect balance 🙂 of perfection and imperfection that is ideal.

I can't prove a word I say but as I see it 'art' (and I include a lot of entertainment in that category) tends to do better with an element of imperfection in its presentation. Perfect is often boring in art. I have no idea why but it is just so.

I went to see the Hobbit with two of my nephews. I couldn't pin down the reason as I wasn't at that time aware of the technical details of how it was shot but I do know I was sitting there in the theatre profoundly unimpressed with the look of the whole thing. Yes, that was a memorable occasion.

I think I would really need to see the images in a cinema, checking out how it looked on the big screen. For the average online viewing of video I wonder if it really matters whether it's 2K or 4K or whatever. There are colour advantages (so they say) of starting with 4K or higher. On a small screen if subtle grain has been added to the image digitally it tends to improve the look to me. I find it interesting that Arri decided to stick with S35 for their newest camera, rather than full frame. I find the full frame for video an unusual choice as it was traditionally a stills camera, or vistavision (which was never very common) 'sensor' size (film frame size). I understand the appeals of full frame, since it provides shallow dof and higher resolution. But with it come some difficulties. Lenses choices are significantly fewer and lenses are bigger and heavier in many cases for instance. I think full frame cameras tend to draw more power too. Certainly the Canon 500 ii uses a lot more power than the S35 C300 iii. On the whole my view is that a slightly softer look suits narrative drama productions better than a crisp, stark ultra high definition look.

Very cool Dom. Are people hiring the occasional Panaflex in Australia, or does Panavision sometimes send you over a camera to work on?

It's great to see interest in real film continue to grow! It's a new wave.

I went with Canon 🙂 Seems to be highly subtle differences (with minimal post) between brands. Something about the 'look' of Canon footage appeals to me.

I agree. Every time I'm tempted to look at Super 8 I think to myself .. ah.. why bother. 16mm looks just as filmic and the cameras are easier to repair and no doubt they last much longer. But still, if you are determined to shoot Super 8, then I would just get a huge collection of cheap working cameras together. If you can afford it there is Pro8mm who refurbish old Super 8 cameras.