Jon O'Brien

Fixing things ... that's good. Trying to fix things by hugely mucking things up isn't good. I guess that's where we would agree. There's indeed many encouraging things happening in society worldwide, by all reports. So hooray for that.

Phil, I think that's one of the best things I've read in a while, what you just wrote. That's a fine summation of what has beset the entire western world in the last decade/s. This strange need to play fixer of things, to 'know best', to change things, to make artificial rules that turn things around, to set quotas, to treat people like material objects to be assigned places according to some idea. Yes, of course women make just as fine cinematographers as men. People bend over backwards to help a woman in her chosen profession. Don't set up artificial quotas for sex discrimination set by some sort of meddling from on high. That's replacing a mistake with a mistake. Have no quotas, no agendas, no discrimination at all. Just be supportive where you can be supportive. Encourage people. And look out for your own job, and do what you can to protect it, lest someone tries to decree that you can't do that job because someone else wants it or artificially sets up a system where, no matter who you are or what you are, you just don't materially 'make the grade' according to the discrimination. My God, that's unjust.

I'm not afraid to say it. Men have to watch their backs big time in female-dominated industries. They push men out. They work together as a team. They look out for the sisters and the sisters only. I'm talking about particular workplaces that in some cases have a toxic environment. No man who has never experienced this or known men who've admitted it would believe it. Men can do these things too, to women, so I hear, but I've never experienced, seen, or taken part in such bad goings on. All people can do bad things. Both sexes. It's illegal but it happens. So, we hear how women tend to always be good and fair. It's simply not true. I'm not a supporter of making up for historic mistakes by making new mistakes. So, if you're a man and find yourself in a job/industry that values you, and you find there's few women in that industry, don't worry about it.

Speaking of cinema projectors ... Anyone remember my little story of how, last year, the aging projectionist led me along a dusty track in the hills, to a small garden shed in which resided two enormous Victoria 8 35/70mm cinema projectors, complete with all the gear, lamps, lenses and generators, all in top condition, and lovingly cared-for? I held back on buying them as he wanted to only sell one, and I wanted both. Well, I contacted him a few days ago, again saying I will buy them both if he still has them. He said, alas, a fire swept through the 'bush' property - and the shed, his personal belongings, and both projectors were destroyed. The other thing he said is that he'd gladly have given both to me! If only he'd told me that the first time I met him. They're gone now. Sort of speaks of the peril that film projection finds itself in today ... at risk of extinction if big efforts aren't made to keep it alive. If the general public can be 'educated' as to how good real film can look I think interest might rise sufficiently to support one dedicated cinema in a large city. As often mentioned, you'd have to have access to great prints.

For movies shown on the big screen in a cinema, my own view of things is that, if in my dream (since this topic is about dreams) I could make some feature films ? - which, who knows, could happen - I think with digital projection now being commonplace that the look I would go for is one where the movie is "quite obviously shot on film." So, my preference would be 35 mm, where there's more chance of seeing some grain. Super 16 on the big screen usually looks just a bit too noisy to me - though I must admit, in First Man the S16 shots looked perfect for that movie. With 65mm, this to me doesn't make much sense these days if, other than the shooting, it's all going to be finished and exhibited digitally. If done that way it will be difficult to tell from digital, and at great expense too. 2 perf 35mm seems a good option for what I'd like to do, as the grain becomes just barely noticeable on the big screen, and the cost is reduced by about half. Ideally though, speaking of dreams, I would establish a cinema somewhere with film projectors in it, in a large city like Melbourne or Sydney. You've gotta have dreams. As the lady said in the movie, how else you gonna have a dream come true?

Yes, that's what you'd expect of show attendees. Ask someone with training in art, like yourself of course, who contends with the difference between digital and film regularly and I think you might get some insightful comments. In many cases the difference is starkly obvious to someone who has trained their eyes. Film people are saying that, sure, the audience doesn't know most of the time .... but is nevertheless affected by things that they don't consciously notice. In my opinion film is, on the whole, a nicer look, yet quite a few people adore digital images and are sold on the whole thing. But I suspect we're living in a time of reduced perception of what is artistic, yet there's at the same time a huge hunger for art, especially amongst younger people. Interesting times. The baby-boomer generation were pretty much entirely sold on digital imagery. Sure, so are a lot of young people today. But there's a quiet revolution happening out there, right now, as we write.

It's the stills world, not filmmaking I know, but I was speaking with a photographer the other day who sells some pictures to a fairly well-known company. She doesn't make much from it, but she says they do pay. Now, I won't mention any names, as it's anecdotal information and may not be correct ... but anyway, she said this company is turning their back on digital photographs, and is now asking for negatives from photographers (just for your interest it was not National Geographic). She said the company now no longer likes the look of digital photographs for their product. Well, it's one of those "I heard an old man on the bus say ....." Except in this case it wasn't an old man, and it wasn't on a bus. So, there it is. I was surprised by it. Just the other day I determined that I'm going to get my old film SLR off the shelf, dust it off, and buy some Kodak film for it. And then I met this photographer and she told me that.

Panavision, 35mm, and anamorphic seems to be emerging as a winning combination. A few have mentioned 65mm spherical too. Reminds me of Kenneth Clark, in his famous tv series Civilization. "What is it?," he asks the viewer at one point, trying to pin down the mystery of why something has such meaning and quality. He doesn't know the answer, but he asks anyway. It's the same here. What is it about film that leaves an impression on us? Why can't we forget film? Or is that another thread?

I fully understand that. I wasn't suggesting that I felt any disrespect or anything. Respect to you.

As I see it cinematography.com is going fine the way it is. I don't see it going downhill. Okay, so quite a few of you are distressed by one contributor. But look at what happens - you all, more than adequately, state your opposition to his posts. If Tyler posts something that you feel or know is wrong you make it clear that a majority of regular contributors disagree with him. So, isn't that all fine? I don't see it as a problem. Life is messy and complicated, and so why would an internet forum be any different? Also, Tyler is a filmmaker and active cinematographer, to a large extent self-taught perhaps but that's fine. And he has a lot of energy and enthusiasm. Are these not good things? Perhaps if you could concentrate on some of Tyler's positive contributions it might well help your heads that you seem to suggest have been 'done in' by him. Yes, this thread is an embarrassment, but it will quickly be forgotten. I don't think there's grounds for anyone being banned. If you do change cinematography.com to invitation-only I hope I will be invited, as one of Greg's "want-to-be's." I do seem to slowly be making advances in filmmaking - I've met with a producer on the Gold Coast and he has given me some ideas to get started.

With respect, isn't that forgetting the rather exasperated comments of many here.

Thanks Dom, how interesting. The article is a surprise to me and very encouraging for all film enthusiasts. I hadn't thought film was quite as popular amongst cinematographers as it actually is. Interesting to read the comments of these experts - they are as one voice in naming the unique quality of celluloid film. Which of course is not to say that digital doesn't have unique qualities, too. It is simply a medium or format I've no particular interest in.

With digital cameras it would be interesting if you could pay extra for a plug-in card or something, or punch in a code, and it instantly re-jigs the whole camera for 'film camera' in every practical respect, Kodak stock of specified speed, etc. Maybe such things already exist. You could get it on your tripod, turn the thing on, look at it, and say, okay, it's a 2 perf Arri, loaded with Vision3 250D. Same shutter, etc. So for film people, they would be much more confident about the whole thing, shooting on digital. They'd set the aperture, adjust lighting and so on, and off you go. Press 'run' ... "and .... action"..

Yes, can the thread go back to what it's supposed to be about? If a disputed post is written, don't appeal to the creator of the post. Clearly that approach isn't working - as this goes back several years apparently (though I truly admire some of the very polite and respectful efforts to try and appeal to reason). There's a definition of madness that goes something like this: doing the same thing again and again but expecting a different result. If the moderator hasn't banned someone, there seems little point endlessly (and I really do mean endlessly) harping on about a contributor to the forum. If a post is written that you feel or know is erroneous, refrain from addressing the poster and simply point out the error and give your correction as you see it. Let the gentle reader choose his or her advice and/or information as he or she sees fit. People are pretty smart usually. Otherwise the very attempt to improve the forum sort of, well, shoots itself in the foot. You can't win. So just calmly post your correction to what you see as incorrect information. Because nothing's going to change. That's clear.

Amongst other things, I'd like to make a musical like South Pacific or Carousel. Can you imagine the sort of talent, money, but above all spirit and drive and faith!! that such a production needs from those at the top. And with the original story, intent and tradition without trying to be 'correct'. Can we even find singers who can sing like that? Yes, shot on 65mm would be the way I'd do it too. And a traditional western with 'good' values of faith and steadfastness and the things that have sustained human beings for thousands of years. Not cheap and boring violence for the sake of something to fill the minutes on the screen. Films about suffering, loss and redemption. Hope. You name it.

And the projector sprockets went ta-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa in the darkened room, as Tyler took a long, slow draw on his Havana cigar. And then the door swung open with a bang, shuddering on its hinges. Light filled the room. In walked Robin, wearing a fedora and a crinkled raincoat. Dom followed at his heels, a large calibre gun in his hand ..... the look on their faces was grim. Tyler shut down the projector and it rattled to a halt. Someone flicked on a lamp. Swirls and motes of dust circled in the beam of light ...

I agree. Film really suited that picture. It was gritty and risky, like the on-screen events. Now, digital is great too, for what it's best for. I'm still not convinced. I think it's true they don't care to know what the thing was shot on/with. But as I see it, it's the responsibility of creative people to put on the best show they can. It's the makers who have to know what is going to affect the audience the most, for that picture, and take the leadership to make that show as great as they can. The audience, while not knowing why the film has affected them so, will simply benefit from the expertise of the makers. The audience themselves just want to sit back and enjoy it. Only a tiny few technician geeks in the average audience will know what's going on with how the thing was shot. But not knowing how or why a creative thing moves you doesn't mean that technical differences aren't important. Story alone isn't enough. It's how the thing is stitched together, how the story is told, that plays a huge part. Think of fireside stories, back when that was the main entertainment. There's a great story, sure, but it's how that story is told really well that makes the big difference. I think that format really comes into that, with movies. But the audience doesn't know that, or care, but it is still important, and the makers need to step in and know what is going to work best for that particular picture. It's the maker's responsibility. Put a truly good meal in front of someone and they will love it. Okay, some filmmakers want to shoot digital. Some would like to shoot film. Just put on the best show you can. If you are a producer, you should have a say in how that product is made, so that you are inspired to make it as best you can. To use a musical analogy, a violinist must be inspired by the music and by his/her instrument in order to put on a great performance. It's not going to happen otherwise. The audience benefits from that artist's inspiration. But they don't know why or how they do.

It's obvious that there's something going on behind the scenes in the film industry worldwide. It's like two people who love each other, but neither can come out and say it (yet). They were apart for a bit, trying to prove by their actions and words that all was fine and okay and there's nothing there between us. But they couldn't hide from the truth forever. Filmmakers, which includes anyone who works on a film production, including actors, do really have a soft spot for shooting on film (the real thing, not the thing in name only). Yes. Film will survive ... because of a love for it that's not going away anytime soon. It's growing. Now how's that for waxing lyrical? A love letter for film.

VOD? Musicians make a living by teaching usually, and keep sane by doing gigs which fortunately contribute towards some milk, bread and pizza money each week. Videos are a huge amount of work for not much return, for the average gigging musician. Best policy for the average musician is to keep it live, keep it real. Back out of too much online stuff, I reckon, it seems to be a great idea but there's already too much out there. Stephen's thread has gone rogue. It's all good.

Conjecture is okay. We are really just chatting, testing ideas and talking about dreams and what we would like to do remember. If flat-out incorrect statements are given as fact, okay that has to be challenged, but some strange things can be said on both 'sides' of the 'debate'. It is not mere "nostalgia" for film exhibition. That is a bit insulting to say. This is also a discussion about where the film industry is clearly going, and where it's been headed for a while now. I agree with Satsuki's comment about Roger Deakins more recent work. To a lot of people, something has been lost or is in danger of being lost in the movie going experience. And so many don't want to see it. Just pay me my money is the only thought. Tyler's comment is spot on. Digital filming and projection results in an image that looks like what we already see with our own eyes. That's a theatrical failure! We go to the theatre to be transported to another world, not to see what we already see. THIS is why real film has value and will grow in value, especially in cinema-release movies. Another thing is that a lot of industry people clearly don't even bother going to the cinema anymore. That's a mistake. Get to the cinema.

Note the rather poignant words. Discontinued publication of an industry paper. Hmm. Did the article point something out that may have been the seeds of the publication's own demise? Then again, the Australian fully home-grown feature film industry seems to come and go in periods of boom and bust. Or am I wrong? It's interesting, to me at least, that George Lucas chose Australia to lob his first salvo at the film tradition of the industry, with his Star Wars prequels going all digital with Attack of the Clones. Still, it was a revolution that was coming anyway. And it all started ... right here.

I would have thought film was greener, even with the processing chemicals. Digital doesn't seem greener to me at all. I suspect the claim digital is greener might have had some traction once, and was used to try and add some extra push to its shove ?

I've written this before, but I can remember back as early as the mid-eighties there was an article published in the discontinued Australian film industry publication Cinema Papers that the future of feature movie cinematography was going to be fully digital, and imminently so. I have no idea how the person writing that article knew, but time proved them right. It just took a bit longer than was thought. Clearly, technicians at Sony or wherever must have already known by then that sufficient quality was scientifically and economically doable. During my teens I'd planned to go on to be a cinematographer and I wanted to work with film. Believe it or not I was so in love with film as a teenager I would get up early on Saturday mornings to watch a show on TV called 'Wonderful world of boating' (I was not into boating at all) that even on the crummy tv images of those days I could see was clearly shot on 16mm film. We also in Australia had 'The Leyland Brothers', an evening tv show, I specifically watched because at first it was shot on 16mm, and later they started shooting on Super 8. By this time, this was in the days when tv shows were almost all shot on video. So, I don't know why I was so committed to film, but I was. Someone decides they are just an oils person, as a painter. Who knows why. It's just a look they are seeking. Perhaps a method of working too. Video never got me interested. My mistake maybe, but it doesn't matter as I went on to do other good things. Like many teenagers contemplating their future lives I was in two minds as to what to do after leaving school. That Cinema Papers article clinched it for me. I decided I didn't want to get into cinematography if it meant it was all going to change one day soon to digital. And in Australia you could tell there was a lot of excitement out there about digital. I just didn't share that enthusiasm. So there it goes. My point in writing this? Just to say that the first talk of a coming revolution happened long before it actually arrived. Most here would know this, but still worth repeating. To this day I'm amazed not only at how true that article was, but also that I myself could clearly see, young as I was, that that big change was definitely coming. For some reason Australia was particularly keen to change completely to digital.

But of course!

Man, I like this spirit!!! THIS is how we should be. Come on people.