Jon O'Brien

"The Rebel's hidden fortune ..." he was going to say, before being cut off. I've just found out that that's a football team, based out of Manchester, UK. Could be a major shareholder I'd say.

I note that in the board room the pesky junior executive makes reference to missing data. What could have occurred? I'd say, at a glance, that what we're looking at is a meeting chaired by the boss of the film company deciding on what to do about this alarming situation, with an announcement to major shareholders looming. In fact, the guy in white is a major international shareholder representing a large internet firm. Vader, a film guy from way back, is fuming that they didn't film those night shots on film and store the original camera negative.

I didn't mean to offend you or any other technician, Dom. I believe you are an artist and a great technician. My comment was pointing out that a business will naturally tend to point a potential client more towards their major stock in trade. I will look forward to going to Panavision at some point and I'm sure they will be very helpful. I'm looking for people up my way who are interested specifically in film -- I'm very busy at the moment but looks like a project opportunity may be beckoning. I know of an award winning cinematographer up this way and producer on the Gold Coast who are interested. Who knows, could be a press release kind of affair. "And ... ACtion!! Film cameras whirr once more in Queensland"

A lot of very successful recent films have used 2 perf and it looks wonderful. I actually don't mind a bit of visual reminder that it's film, such as a bit of hair in the gate here and there, as long as not too distracting. Once I emailed Panavision in Australia, as I then owned a camera with a Panavision mount on it, and got a very blunt opinion back from one individual with whom I disagreed. Always do what creativity leads you to do and not what technique and technicians lead you to do. Those things are there to serve creativity but creativity actually leads. A technician is a technician, and really, a salesperson. That last bit is the important bit. If you want to shoot 2 perf just do it and it will be great. Get one of those air blower cans, a magnifying glass and a very bright, small torch.

It's not me either ? Here's Darth Vader, reacting to a bean-counting middle manager advocating total digital. Shot on film.

I do like the look of 2 perf. Sharp but with more noticeable grain compared with 3 perf on the big screen. However there doesn't seem to be many 2 perf cameras or movements available for conversion. It's a significant cost saving with very high quality. Possibly easier to find lower-cost lenses for, too.

Now, come on you two. Deactivate your lightsabres and stand down.

I'm getting around to doing some filming. I know ... it's taking me ages. But believe me, I've got other things to do and I've had a lot of research on lenses to do as well. It's all starting to fall into place. I've got an Arri IIC and 35-3, serviced and ready to go, an am going to buy this battery most probably: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1048193-REG/bescor_fp_12vatm_12v_lithium_ion_battery.html But here's my question. Anyone know if I need to solder a fuse case into the line between the camera and the battery? Or okay to use the Bescor battery as is? I think the 35-3 might have a fuse in it already but the IIC doesn't.

Haven't seen this film yet. I'm going to buy the DVD. Thanks for letting us know about this film, it look glorious.

Nah, just get a cheapy Bolex off ebay Robin. Join the club. Doesn't even have to be a reflex. You will love it. A little roll of film every now and then. Home movies maybe ...

Very well said. I like artistic risk and handmade things, rough and wild, etched and hand-cut, natural. I'm not so much into smooth, polished chrome, pristine glitz and plastic, and clinical purity. The same in music. I like an acoustic violin with an interesting, passionate sound, with a bit of risk in the playing. I'm a bit of a Gypsy in character. Film isn't hipsterish (though it can be of course). Film is just a little bit grittier and real than digital. That appeals to a lot of people and they seek that out, over the clinical and neat and tidy. I get why digital is so loved. Perhaps it might help some digital purists to think of film as the slightly rough and dirty version of what digital can do. But a bit wild and a bit interesting and bit unpredictable. The pixel purists can turn up their nose at it, sure. Perhaps take a whiff of perfume on their lace hanky and serenely look the other way whenever the great unwashed wanders by their table, while taking their tea. They'd be absolutely right to say nearly all of the audience doesn't care whether films are shot on digital or on film. But the cinematographer knows, just like the violinist knows precisely what violin and what bow he or she is playing on. And does a violinist care? Oh yes.

There's two saxophone teachers in town. They live next door to each other. One of them is slightly irked by the other. Or perhaps more than slightly. The other's just starting out and is keen and isn't irked by the other teacher. Just wants to get to work and is passionate. The irked one gets snarky sometimes and says the other sax teacher is a charlatan and a joke. Maybe gets very personal and says to the other teachers in town that his 'competitor' was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. The sax teacher who's irked feels threatened somehow, professionally, by the other teacher. But consider this. That town is pretty big, and there's lots of keen students. The other sax teacher is a hard-working person who just gets on with the job and couldn't give a hoot who of the two of them is the big name in town. That's why it's odd about the one who is irked. He's actually showing that he's got a chip on his shoulder. That's the bit I don't get. Why on earth would someone who has absolutely won (digital has won!!) and is a complete professional get irked. But I see this very thing happening a lot in the world. People get funny about their patch of turf. So, I did write some more, after all. And, so who's the best saxophonist, of the two? Do you think the little flower out in the garden knows? I might write a little book about it. Or make a film.

Shooting format isn't fetishized here. I don't agree. Film very nearly died. It's showing some signs of life. People who want to see film survive become passionate in pointing out the many charms of film. What's become clear is that many 'digital' people, not all but many, people who totally believe in the total professional ascendancy of digital (which is the truth in the actual industry: digital has totally triumphed and is the 'big thing' in town now) are clearly irked that film is surviving and is being passionately defended. That's the bit that's odd. What on earth is the problem? Film is surviving and a few people are passionate about it? What am I missing here? That's not a fetish. That's what's called ... um.... liking something. Being keen about something. Um ............... No more to add, mein friends. It's all been said.

I still can't really figure out your, Robin's and Phil's viewpoint on this. You say that someone who pretentiously brags about the format as the first thing they do is going to be showing something that's worthless dross. But it's an odd thing to get your goat, if you know what I mean. An odd bee to have in your bonnet. Really, an odd thing that definitely gets your knickers in knots. Now, I know, you don't like to realise this about yourselves. But I must say it, guys. You sound irritated by people who shoot film. It's just so obvious. ... And someone needed to tell you.

No, no, no, Phil, this just won't stand the test. A clever filmmaker who has a some wit, talent and aptitude would never be so dumb. A smart person never makes the mistake of bragging. You just make the film, and if so blessed, you have it shown at a film festival. Okay, so it was made on 35mm. Does that make it garbage? Er, well, no, it doesn't. The film is only garbage if it's garbage. Lots of people can make garbage films -- on 35 mm, on Reds, on Alexas, on Blackmagics, ..... or on any manner of other camera or phone. But .... what if ... now, sure, it's a big what if ...... but ...... what if ....................... it's not a bad little film??? Good heavens, what if it's even rather good? ....And it was made on 35 mm? You'd be happy wouldn't you? We all would. Even Robin would be. There's nothing particularly remarkable about wanting to shoot on film. If I painted watercolour I wouldn't give a fig if there were oil painters out there. The scandal!! People painting in oils. Who ever heard of such a thing? They must be untalented. Only watercolourists have talent, professionalism and artistic shrewdness, why, we all know it. The rest are highly likely to be pretentious scam artists or untalented idiots. I will be writing a letter to the editor of the local paper to air my views. This scandalous business must be brought to the light of public enquiry. Oil painters!! Surely if we petition the Government this can be revealed for the sham that it is.

I think these are all extremely valid points that have recently been raised here regarding cinema film projection for feature movies. The cineplex with a rank or 'gun deck' of dual 35 mm or platter system projectors will almost certainly never be back, and that's quite okay as, after all, digital projection is rather nice, too. The only feasible scenario that will really work with a cinema that operates as a business (and not by Government subsidy) with film projectors is a one-off and out-of-the-ordinary establishment with a dedicated single screen or at least not many screens and a real team of pros running the projection booth. That will be a rare situation but a doable one. The ticket price would presumably have to be higher, but maybe not by much. It's difficult but I can see it working. Then again, presumably many cinema companies are recouping millions they spent equipping and then upgrading for full digital so they would have to factor in that cost to their ticket price as well. There are many dire stories of terrible projection of film for features but in the seventies and eighties I was an avid cinema goer and not once, not once, ever saw an out of focus or jittery or terribly dirty (I don't mind a slightly, old and scratched print myself) or flickery movie back then. Confidence people, come on, confidence! Let's not talk down what is clearly possible. Good, dedicated and keen young projectionists is the answer and there are people in big cities champing at the bit to do it.

Somewhat in the spirit of Darth Vader, don't be too proud of your youth, you young-uns. It quickly runs out. It's amazing and nothing is more sure, the speed of that change.

Thanks Nick! I really think I will go ahead and get a 16mm projector soon if I can find a good one for a good price. Probably an Eiki. I can just put some tape over one side of the gg.

My third-last post here is a play on words, from Robert Frost's The Road Not Taken. For me that would mean the Red and the Alexa. Thank you and, may I say, STAND OLD IVY!!! They are cheering for film!

Believe me, there's not going to be a problem bringing back film projection to the occasional suburban or big city cinema. The number of uber-keen kids out there who love film, absolutely it is their dream, is huge. These young kids will be the vanguard of a whole new movement in bringing back cinema film projection (in selected theaters, of course). And dudes like me have the cameras and lens know-how to feed the cinemas. Calls accepted. Please speak to my secretary.

It's a curious and, I find, somewhat amusing characteristic of the current era that often it is those who rail the most against some group or type with some imagined quality that is out of touch with the contemporary vibe or spirit are actually the ones who are doing the railing and the fist shaking. The other mob are often a lot more cool and just getting about their lives in a healthy way. And it's the railers who are doing the very thing they accuse the accused of. Quite amusing to see, and it's a rife phenomenon in the world right now. Oh people, look at thyselves in the mirror and seek ye thy common humanity. And then relax and enjoy your tea, because it's all good.

Two moving images diverged in a creative decision. And I --- I took the one more arty. And that has made all the difference.

? Well, Stuart, technically a snob is someone who cares more, or only cares, for the superficial, social-climbing 'score points' of a situation than for artistic taste. And that's the absolute last thing I am. Actually I've suffered the brunt of snobs in what I seek to do. Snobs aren't all bad, though ... they're often the ones filling the seats, paying the way for creative people. So here's to art snobs. They're a vital part of the arts economy. But me one of 'em? Nah. I want to shoot on film because I think the image looks so good.

On the big screen, at the movies, I've never yet been fooled by digital cinematography into thinking it was shot on film. I can always tell. Pretty quickly.

It would probably make a fine short film script in itself!