Jon O'Brien

I don't know whether you're looking for top cine or more humble lenses but I can tell you a Tokina 11-16 with PL mount will fit on an Arri SR without bumping into the viewfinder just above the lens mount. At least, the one I have fits. No footage to show yet but soon hopefully I will post some. Getting there. I'm told it's a sharp lens. The Canon 8-64 isn't a modern lens but it works well with an SR and it's pretty sharp.

That's true, an algorithm can't acquire consciousness, or sentience. But it's a tool or even a mouthpiece perhaps. Makes me think of warnings in old stories .. from long ago. Make real art.

They're probably best to reboot the whole series (like doing a remake, but sooner than usual). Just go ahead as if the Craig series of films never happened. Don't try to stick to some kind of canon that attempst to link in with the previous films. That would be difficult and awkward. You'd need a convincing look-alike too. Extremely difficult to do. No, start completely afresh. They could even start with Dr No. Start with a young Bond at around the time he earns his 00 prefix. I hope they shoot it on film too and keep the quality at its usual very high level. I'm inclined to think that if they go fully digital on it it will end up looking like a Netflix series that's also shown in cinemas. Yes, it's possible to keep a very high cinematic quality shooting on video but the tendency in the real world is that the level of the 'look' is in danger of declining over time when moving to digital on a series that started on film. It gets that modern pristine or plastic look that so many seem to be so happy with. But there you go. It is what it is. Yep, hoping they shoot on Kodak film.

I saw on FB a guy who filmed a Coke ad on Super 8 a few years back. What a great ad. Man, now that's some imagery that would make me sit up and take notice if I saw that play on the TV or online, or in the cinema. Absolutely no AI. The best thing, the newer generations dig it. Film is getting noticed.

In the total-digital world many photographers and videographers now work in, yes there does seem to be a thing where many creative types are increasingly putting the camera down and just sitting at a computer. I call it the screen sitter movement. Creativity in front of a computer screen instead of with a viewfinder to the eye. I see it in the so called 'screen industry' -- which increasingly is inhabited by variations on the theme of gamer and graphics designer. It's one reason why I see that there's a move back to film by people who want to be actual photographers and cinematographers. They want to be roving around with a real camera in a real world capturing images of real things. Only film is 100% that.

I don't think it's killing off cinematography as we know it. Photography didn't kill off painting (with oils, or watercolours, etc). It's tough to make a living from a creative, arty field and it always will be. There's so many things that could go wrong it's not worth worrying about them. Just get on with doing what you do. If you can't make enough doing cinematography you will have to take on an extra job or jobs. And so it goes.

I also recommend getting to know Davinci Resolve free version as soon as possible. There is a bit of ground to cover in the color grading, editing and sound side of things, and it does it all. Don't despair if your progress at first is slow and frustrating. Keep at it and all will eventually become clear further along the track of learning. Don't be concerned about not having a 16mm camera. Even phones can do amazing things. There's at least one webpage I've seen of a business where she does wedding videos with mobile phones as camera. Save up for a film camera if that is your long term goal. Film is easier than many think. Best wishes!

Hmm, hadn't thought of ceramic. It's tough, and is applied with the help of some gadget dentists use, not sure what. Ceramic teeth can last decades and teeth are chomping away daily. Can you get a black ceramic? An Arri pressure plate, at least, being such fine tolerances, might need to be first polished back a bit to maintain the same height/pressure.

Tyler you're a great one for instilling a sense of gloom about the Arriflex SR. Haha. And there's others here who do that too. Sigh. Just imagine ... all might be fine with the Arri SR, and the little chrome rectangle on the pressure plates. If not, I will have to get someone to fix the problem. At least only the mag, maybe one at a time, can be sent off, and not the whole camera. But I might contact Kodak, and point out that, hey, SRs have a little chrome rectangle on the pressure plate, narrower than the film frame, and see what they say.

I'm thinking about starting a Facebook film shooters filmmaking group , Sunshine Coast and/or Brisbane based. Though, I'm now starting to network with a few local people for video jobs so might not need to. My videography only started to take off recently. The reality is that you have to offer your services for free at first, then for a very small fee, and so on. So many videographers around, both pro and semi-pro amateur, nearly one in every family. Getting into digital myself was a good move. It all takes time to learn. Am filming on a IIC soon, just a test, that Dom made a battery for. After that I might have to get a 35-3 looked at as it seems to have very specific power needs and the motor doesn't run reliably with the current power supply.

Where I differ from some is that I consider the current situation in cinema release narrative feature movies and their quality (maybe just as an audience member and nothing more!) as being much more serious than anything to do with AI. But it looks like many people are very worried about AI. I just couldn't care about anything to do with it at the moment but I don't make a living from vfx or concept art, or online content creation so called. Is AI going to inhibit or ruin the jobs of wedding videographers, to use one example? Not one bit, surely. Or, hardly. There's all sorts of things that bring about a death of art. Man, that's a long list. I just get on with making art where I possibly can. Yep, a fair point about just stop talking about it, and make films. Yes, I can and should do just that. I wish though I could get more people excited about shooting on film in my area. I guess it will happen, eventually.

Goodby Remjet, hello AHU, There's no more halation, and ain't that true, Seems so right, it can't be wrong, Lovin' the film look ... all year long!

I agree with you. You can make art with any kind of medium, and it's the talent alone that's important. A talented musician can pick up anything and sound wonderful. That said, if it's a pro musician, while they can indeed play on anything and sound great, I've also noticed that without fail they have a great instrument. I know and have known a lot of musicians (you probably have, too) and that is always the case. Top guitarists always have a top instrument. Yes you can make art with digital gear. I'd be a snob if I didn't think so, and I'm not a snob. If you knew me you'd see that. The most important thing to me is people being free to be people, and that means being creative if they're so inclined. Digital has given and still gives great things to the world. The digital revolution needed to happen to film & TV because the system couldn't cope with all these many miles of film prints. Plus, digital cinematography is perfect for what it's best at. My comments here at cinematography.com regarding the film/digital thing are always aimed specifically at cinema-release feature movie production. They're not aimed at all the many areas in which digital video cameras are so apt and perfect for. What I'm really saying is that for a certain niche of film production, that film really is generally better than digital. And that there's no question about that. But, of course, that's how I see it. You disagree, and that's fine. I use digital cameras more than film cameras currently and am using one this weekend for a shoot. I feel that I'm the one that is responding to a fanaticism: the strong belief that digital video is better and now universal and film has been superceded, which, where I live, is a universal belief. So, I think it's a matter of where I live. I'm a voice crying in the wilderness (don't worry ... that was a joke). I was in Sydney the other day and went to the "Super 8" shop in Newtown. Wherever I go I seek out real film people and places. There's nothing like that in Brisbane. And on the north coast. It's like film has cobwebs here and there's an ancient spinet or harpsichord being played by a dusty skeleton whenever film is mentioned. I'm all for digital and film coexisting. There's many things about digital video that I think is fantastic. For one, I love that scanning has improved so immensely that scanned film, projected digitally, now looks very similar to an optically projected film print. In some ways, even better. But I often love the look of digital cinematography. The many fine cooking shows on TV are beautifully photographed by artist cinematographers. Just recently I adored the look that Lea Beavers got for an episode of Roux Down the River. I felt like contacting him and asking for information. Digital is super cool and I love it. But, ... something's got to be done about how digital - so often - lets a feature film production down. Not enough are saying it, and it needs to be said. Digital can kill the atmosphere and vibe of a feature movie that could really have been significantly better if it had been shot on film. I watched a film last night, or tried to, we had to give up on it. The vibe and feel of a feature movie just wasn't there. It felt like excellent actors in front of a video camera doing screen tests. I can't believe more don't comment on this type of loss of vibe and feel in some productions that were shot digitally. I won't mention names of crew but it had Mel Gibson in it and it had great sets, great actors, great art direction, great everything, about a great topic, but it lacked something important that, I believe, shooting on film could have given it. Stephen here at C.com has mentioned this in feature films too, how many that are shot on video, especially period era stories, feel like a bunch of actors doing dress ups. Exactly. On an entirely different note, here is an encouraging note about recent cinema attendance. I have no idea how either of these movies where shot and I don't care. Anything to get more people into cinemas is great news to me. I concede that I may be wrong about shooting on film specifically helping cinema attendance to improve but I know that, somehow, there's some kind of problem there with many current productions that, really, I've never seen before at the movies. What is it? Talent? I haven't read this entire article, but the gist of it: https://hollywoodheretic.substack.com/p/the-cinema-will-save-us?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Arri SRs have a chrome pressure plate on the mags. Hopefully won't need to get that blackened and I have no idea how it could be done. If Kodak really goes ahead with this with all their Vision 3 stocks I hope they maintain some remjet film manufacture for special order because I would definitely miss the halation around lights. Does the 535B have a chromed pressure plate?

What is a great movie? It is a piece of art. How do you make a piece of art? With sacrifice. With hard work. With sweat. With pain. With struggle. With expense. With sacrifice. Want to lounge back and have fun and be cruisy? Yes, those things are necessary and very good and you need to have those. In your time off, though, not on the job. Cinematography has to be difficult. Those cruisy dudes on YT who go on about digital cinematography, I bet you anything they couldn't shoot a compelling and great movie. Lounge lizard cinematography is boring to look at because there's just no sweat or sacrifice in it. There's no art.

Film is more prone to "techno-religion" than music, which explains why in some ways music has better survived the digital revolution. It's easier and much more immediate to see the less than fantastic effect that digital tech has on music than in film. In music, everyone and their dog can tell that Mozart and Beethoven are better on a traditional acoustic piano or acoustic violin than they are on digital piano and digital violin. Film is a bit more difficult to see immediately, and the effects of digital on the film industry can really only clearly be seen down the track, in trends, years later. We're seeing and eating the fruit of the digital revolution now. It's taken over a decade to shift things to the point where it's now obvious a major shift has occurred. Before, it was easy and cool to say bye to film. It's not so cool now. There are so many videos on YT talking about how to try to get your digital to look like film. Just shoot on film for goodness sake. If you can't afford it then stop buying expensive digital gear.

What you say is true Aapo. What happened to Hollywood movies? We've figured out the "When", in the OP, but what is the "Thing," that took over Hollywood? I can't shake this question that, really, is generally unanswered. People have various theories as to what happened to the movies (at the cinema). We're just in a current slump, they say. It's happened before, they say. Well, never as bad as this. I've been around a bit and I've seen prior slumps. Maybe not entirely but to a large extent, I believe that it was this "cheap" production outlook you mention. This is from the producer side of things. And also, what you call the "techno-religious mindset." This is from the DP and director side of things. As I observe it, the belief is that things evolve for the better always. And that this "evolution" is a thing we must respond passively to. Sony invents or adapts a new cinema camera, that George wants to use, because, well, George never was too fond of the on-location filming bit and just liked to be back at the editing room, and frankly, he was kind of sick of working with film. Plus the timing was right, for Sony, etc. And then Arri came onboard ... we know the story. But if it hadn't been George it would have been some other big name. I believe digital wasn't an advance for cinema. It's cheapened it, and the kind of technicians working behind the camera now have a different outlook and, really, a different visual taste. They like what they see, but I don't. Many others don't, too, clearly. Enough time has gone by to now look back and see this in hindsight. Shoot film and see the cinema bounce back. Because if you have a cheap outlook it will eventually show in your output. If you lack taste, it will show. Audiences know, though they might not be able to articulate why movies aren't really all that great any more.

And 'twas around this time feature movies at the cinema started to go downhill. But, of course, it could merely be a coincidence. And yet ... Imagine "American Graffiti" shot on an Alexa, or a RED.

Thanks for posting! Interesting to see the Wolfen color 400. I will look forward to see more.

I watched "The Incredible Hulk" (2008) on television last night (with all the ads). It actually wasn't bad. It had a very human element, and of course it was mostly shot on film, and the vfx shots though very 'digital' in character were made by people, not by AI. It's once you get past a certain point, with an all-digital production, with lots of CGI, and now these days with lots of AI, that you get computer-content overload. The level of 'real' in the production drops to miniscule, and you are watching a production made by a computer. But "The Incredible Hulk" was watchable because it was a very human picture. It had a lot of handmade elements in it, being shot largely on film (except for the 'hulk' sequences).

There is this apathetic attitude: "Oh ... evolution of technology is happening ... there is nothing we can do ... it's inevitable." Bah! (Doctor Smith) If you don't like the trend, change it. Do something about it.

Even if Eastman goes belly up, to quote Yoda: "There is another." I suspect film will be around a long, long time (if civilistion as we know it continues). Just keep shooting film, cinematographers. I'd like to see a computer load a film camera. Sure, no doubt possible, but cheaper and simpler to let a person do it.

New markets open up. A fair few people, enough to sustain a market, will get so sick of the stink of artificial crud that they will feel they need to take a shower. Those are the people that will want their weddings shot on film ... or whatever (I just use that as an example. There are many others), or they will want to avoid going to see movies at the cinema that are made by computers ...... the urge to get away from the great fake will run deep. I see it in my own extended family. The younger ones are sick of the taste of fake in their lives. They want to live. They want what's real. They want real leather. Real wood. Not plastic. Computers are great at some things but they suck at real. A lot of people want real, and they are finding it. Films made with actors in black boxes? Oh yes, there will be those who pay for it. But many will be running the other way with their hard-earned.

Real film in a real cine camera as the image capture, and the resulting edited footage projected in an actual cinema, was and always will be the foundation and basis of the film industry. Not video. Video is at heart a TV and computer games technology. The blending of video, computer imagery, and cinema is dragging down the whole film industry.

Cinema goers have to decide, and they are, believe me, whether they want to see films, or video games.