Jon O'Brien

If shooting on digital as some have suggested you could always sort of 'cheat' a little, if mixing the footage with real film, by using film emulation software in post on the digital. Add heaps of grain and a bit of gate weave. I'm all for it, myself.

There are ways to make your life easier filming weddings, without spending too much money. You probably know this, but you can also get an electric motor that will fit on the side of a Bolex Rex 5 and similar models. The camera will still be loud but you can film at a moment's notice (if you don't need to load film at that moment!).

Shooting weddings on 16mm is difficult no matter what you do. The camera is either very heavy or it's noisy. Super 8 is slightly quiter and much faster to load. If I was shooting a lot of weddings on film I think I'd probably get a good Super 8 camera, such as from Pro8mm or some other reputable camera repair/rebuilding business, or a few cheaper cameras as back up. If filming with something like a Bolex Rex-5 you will have to point out to the couple that your camera makes a fairly loud whirring sound indoors. For shooting weddings with a lighter 16mm camera I had the idea of filming only the preparations, the arrival, and just after the ceremony. The ceremony itself if indoors could be shot on digital if you don't have a quiet running camera - and the reception too, with perhaps the dance shot on film (with lights) if desired. There will be music playing during the dance so camera noise shouldn't be a problem. If you are determined to shoot 16mm how about a Bolex EL or EBM. They are fairly noisy but you don't have to keep winding them. You can get 400' mags for them but you also need a small motor on the magazine. You could try Du-All in the US. All the best with your filming!

I don't care for the blockbusters that are coming out. But the film/digital discussion just goes around and around in circles, so not much point going on about it. Do what you want in film/video, if you can. When I film things myself and see the results on a computer screen, both digital and film, I much, much prefer the look of the film images. This is my own artistic taste and preference for a video 'look' and I can't explain or account for the taste or preference of others. Same as when I go to an art gallery - some works (and the media from which they are created) there appeal to me much more than the others. It can't really be explained. Nothing regarding the meaning and personal value in art can really be explained accurately in words, I find. People are motivated to use certain media, if they can.That's about all you can say. If you are motivated to shoot real film and it has a lot of value for you, and looks absolutely great to you, then do your best to shoot with it. I got into digital because film really isn't practical anymore for a lot of applications. It's the 'film' medium of today but it lacks some charm and magic - but a lot of people don't seem to care too much about charm and magic. They just want Marvel movies and comic book explosions and fights, or whatever - and that's okay. In the end it's all entertainment. Do what you can, and what you want to do. And that's it.

Doing my level best to do this. Was all set to shoot on 16mm last weekend to film an old historic steam train but the train broke down so no footage yet. Will try again when it's repaired. Couldn't help but see the parallels - old things can be charming and beautiful but are not always as trouble free as 'modern' things. Not all that long ago I was shooting on 16mm (on an old Bolex) and the film came off the take up reel on the 100' daylight reel so a lot of the film was spoiled. I will keep shooting film as long as I can though. It's worth it. It wasn't until digital video technology was developed to such an extremely high level as it is today that I truly understood just how good real film is in comparison.

The film stock looks very good to me. There's just a bit of imperfection but not too bad at all.

The look kind of reminds of a very grainy, bleak looking old projection print of some old movie. But, it's interesting. Would work where you want a very obvious film look. Maybe over time they can improve this.

It's a tragic situation. Never, never, ever, point a gun at anyone. Let alone do that and maybe pull the trigger as a joke (he said he didn't pull the trigger apparently). People who use real guns for their work are taught this over and over again. Or .... they should be. That's what was always traditionally taught. Those things are dangerous.

Sounds feasible to me but there's the very thin 'WD-40'-type oil designed as a moisture inhibitor that comes in a pressure pack that I'd be wary of putting anywhere on a lens - even a drop or two from a syringe. It migrates extremely easily and might find its way to the glass. I think I'd avoid that type of gun oil.

I'm thinking about the Flowtech with Aktiv head for use with an Arri SR and also with Canon EOS cameras (much lighter of course). The expected weight range would be approximately 3 to 10 kg. So I'd be looking at the 100mm bowl. At about twice the price of an equivalent Miller the Sachtler Flowtech with Aktiv10 head would want to, be so much better and quicker to use. Can anyone else chime in with advice about the relative merits of the new Sachtler system, with the 100mm bowl? Even for single operators the lower-priced Miller wouldn't be all that much slower to use, surely? ... or would it? I don't envisage needing to set up a tripod extremely quickly. In other words I'm not likely to be shooting news or wildlife documentary etc. And if you are shooting news you would just use a shoulder rig anyway for quickly-needed shots. So is the Flowtech and Aktiv system really worth the extra cost, over the Miller?

I'd be inclined to cut them a little slack too. Must be a difficult thing to do what they are trying to achieve. I know we're talking color negative here but I used to shoot on Agfachrome Super 8 when I was a teenager and man that had a lovely look. Very different to Kodachrome. The Agfachrome really brought out the rich reds in the basalt soils where I was living and rich greens in the foliage. A grainier image but with a kind of 'fat' look if I can put it that way. It was a sort of warm and rich image that I liked. Movies and tv shows shot on Agfa stock looked great too. Is Orwo film in any way likely to be similar to the old Agfa film?

Beautiful. The light is gorgeous. I think my ideal film format is 2Perf. I would happily specialise in it. Pity that sync-sound cameras in 2Perf are not easy to come by.

Yes as Paul-Anthony says Hollywood-style big-budget 35mm films these days do tend to have a clinical look almost indistinguishable from digital but there must be ways to grunge-up 35mm a bit. What about cropping in a bit (and shooting with this in mind) to effectively make the frame size a bit smaller - but still bigger than Super 16 which needs the most expensive lenses to look truly good on the big screen. Also maximising grain by film stock selection, pushing stops etc. 35mm is a format for the big screen that simply "works well." Super 16 is fine for a real-film look on smaller screens but sometimes I feel it can look a bit underwhelming for a major feature movie. It did look good in my opinion though when it was used for some scenes in 'First Man' (2018). I would like to have seen 'Let the Corpses Tan' (2017) on the big screen. I wonder what that looked like in the cinema.

Wow! Looks amazing. All the best with this project. I once tried to save two enormous, beautifully made cinema projectors in excellent condition from the scrapheap but wasn't able to take on the project. Unlike you I'm not so good at engineering projects and tinkering. It's sort of heart-warming seeing the efforts people are going to to save celluloid motion picture filmmaking and processing in Australia.

Obviously you would need to test to see how the 16mm anamorphic looks on a big screen but I've heard it said that 16mm anamorphic can look a bit soft unless the absolutely sharpest and best lenses are used such as the Hawks. 2-perf seems a more practical choice to me. The other possibility is Super 16 spherical, cropped top and bottom if you want a wider aspect ratio. That comes out looking pretty good on a big screen though not super sharp. It's grainy but some people like that look. I think if I was shooting a picture on 16mm I'd be inclined to avoid anamorphic unless I had the use of the best possible lenses.

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.