Jon O'Brien

I'm hoping this whole debate will just calm down and people will relax about using either digital or film for the actual shoot. You want to do either, fine. There are costs to be considered for both - perhaps digital costs more in post if you are seeking a film look for instance. What is starting to interest me more and more is the idea of shooting on digital but making film prints. Or, let's say, shooting on 2 perf or 16mm possibly, doing a DI (is that what it's called?), and printing to 35mm anamorphic film for exhibition in cinemas with film projectors. I think that would be such a good look -- it would get around some of the photochemical/optical limitations of shooting on smaller formats and blowing up to 35mm or even 70mm. Okay, so not too many film projectors in current use but I'm sure they're stashed away somewhere, lovingly greased and protected from dust and awaiting their time to shine again. As I wrote a while back here, I found two myself in a tiny garden shed along a very rough track out in the wilds.

As a process, shooting on film and then digital post and exhibition, yes if the whole cinema business that deals in celluloid photography stuck only to that process then film might die. Then again, if Kodak folds someone else might step in to fill the place. But as Tyler wisely points out a lot of people seem to forget about cinema projection. That's a huge point. All of Mr Yedlin's great achievements really just to me seem a moot point once you talk of celluloid projection. My dear friends, as you well know ..... there's no comparison to what one can shoot on digital and exhibit on digital, and film projection. But sure, all film might die out one day but I like the point that so will we. Yep, shoot film and if you can, project it too. That could save film, maybe. I think film will survive, actually. But what do I know?

I've experienced the anti-white, straight male thing in two entirely separate jobs/careers. I've experienced racism in the workplace, more than once and even with violence threatened, and I'm not racist, sexist, ageist or any other ist myself. I've experienced sexism for years in the workforce. Fortunately now, after ages (more than a decade) I finally am seeing things improving, strange to say -- in the particular area in which I work. Men are now not being looked down upon in my area but I can sense their stock is rising. Why? Because men have been forced to show that they are decent, hard working and fair. And employers are noticing. And toxic people who want to create division are slowly being found out. So there's hope. Perhaps in cinematography there are some rough years ahead, but in the industries I've worked in these things, well, the ground has already now been covered so to speak. Also, one comment about politics and the media. Yes, there are many poor newspapers, but the thing is, they are on both 'sides' of the debate. Don't be too one-eyed in your outlook is my advice, fwiw. Look at opposing views in the media. At least read or listen to what they are saying. Weigh it up. The real truth is often more complex than journalists know. Journalists and media company owners are just people ... and we already know that real people have weaknesses. Journalists are not higher priests of truth. Also, life is too complex to just write something or someone off because it is "conservative." The real issue is good and bad. What is really good? That's a question not often best left to be answered by a (bloody) journalist. Excuse my French.

Hi Dom! I've been waiting to see when you post again here, to catch your attention. What do you think of my question above. Kind regards, All Australians appreciate what Melbournians are currently going through, with another lockdown. I wish you all well.

Very nice to see. I'm making a 35mm film myself soon, too. The film has been in the fridge too long.

Oh, I simply must mention De Sica's Bicycle Thieves. Made with non-professional actors.

Random Harvest The Third Man Casablanca The Elephant Man To Have and Have Not In the 'very fond of' or 'very interesting' category but not quite my favourites: Brief Encounter (great cinematography though) Great Expectations Eraserhead

A great musician. The bond/link between cinematography and music is a very strong, special, one. I think it might have been Spielberg who once joked that without John Williams' music his films would not have been anywhere near so great or popular. Or he implied as much.

Great to know, Tyler. Do you happen to know if any of these new 1.33x anamorphic lenses coming out soon will be suitable for Nikon F mount/DX (APS-C) cameras? There seems to be a real opening there for someone to make a budget anamorphic lens that will work with Nikon F mount.

Sounds really interesting Aapo! Let's know what you find out with the Century adapter -- I'm always keen to learn more about anamorphic possibilities. If I could I'd love to use one of the new budget Sirui 1.33x anamorphic lenses but they're designed for a shorter flange focal distance than Nikon F mount. Thanks Doug for your very helpful input as well! I'm learning all the time. Yes! It will be good to get back to the cinema again soon. I agree.

I'd like to make small films for entry to short film festivals. Little stories that probably someone else comes up with the screenplay for. I can use S16 and also 2 perf. Now, I know a lot of people would think this is a bit unusual and wasteful but as well as doing spherical test shots with the 2 perf I'm also thinking of doing some experimenting with 1.33x anamorphic on my test reels. Then digital post of course. With 2 perf I'd frame for 16:9 and stretch out later to 2.39. Yes, a lot of expensive film frame lost but to me I'm really looking for a digital 'look' that I've got in my mind's eye and I don't mind trying various means to try and achieve it. Basically, I'm looking for either a 2.39 or 2.20 aspect ratio (could frame for either in the viewfinder with chinagraph lines on the gg), a bit of real film grain, not faked, some quirky lens effects that i actually like (blurred extremities of frame in some shots, some minimal flares, etc). Good thing about 1.33 is that it's quite reasonable to look at through a regular, non-desqueezed viewfinder, compared to 2x. Why go to all this trouble? I know that it's not really possible but I'd like to get a digitally-projected image that is as close as possible to the look of film-projected 35mm prints at the movies I used to see as a kid. So, a bit grainy, a bit soft but not too soft, some anamorphic effects. The film I currently have in mind would be mainly shot outdoors, with minimal interior shots, reasonably close up. I will be using Nikkors as the main lens. For S16 I also have a 16mm Switar. The other requirement is absolute minimum cost even though shooting on film is expensive. This is like solving a puzzle. Absolutely biggest bang for buck, as long as it's shot on film and is a cinema-release feature quality image potentially. That's my dream of doing filmmaking. I'm not a fan of the pristine, edge to edge sharp, clinical, undistorted image we now see in cinemas and on televisions and screens. I like a softer, grainier look. I know people would say just shoot digital ?

I've just found out that there are adapters that change double-focus anamorphic set ups into single focus. How interesting! My research is continuing ...

On a professional shoot, with a pro crew, yes double focus would be, to quote Indiana Jones' dad, "intolerable." But for an Indie filmmaker who kind of does the photography, script, directing and nearly everything, and has the time to muck about with focus while hopefully keeping the actor/s entertained sufficiently (maybe chuck them a Mars bar while figuring things out?), surely a bit of double focus should be feasible if the results tally more with what one was artistically hoping to see on the projection screen. I really like the look of anamorphic, just like most people, so am persevering with this idea. To combine this look with film, would be ..... wow. My biggest question at the moment is not aberration, or blurring edges (sometimes those things look great to my eye) ... it is focusing the thing well enough using a film camera. Can anyone point me towards some videos someone has made with film, that uses one of these budget anamorphic adapters. At this stage I don't really mind if the images are, on the whole, a bit soft. Just as long as they are usable images that appeal and that they are focused as best as they can be for that lens/adapter conjunction. Feel free to offer any advice. Thank you. (edit: I suppose American readers don't know what a Mars bar is. It's a chocolate bar, originating from the UK I think).

Which is easier - to focus manually on a digital screen, and I mean either in a viewfinder or on a small display screen at the back of the camera, or to focus manually using the groundglass on a film camera such as an Arri with mirror shutter -- and in both cases using a lens such as from a still camera that might not have accurate focus marks. Let us assume daylight conditions with a good amount of light. I'm guessing it is so much easier with digital. One trick with focusing back in my Super 8 days with zoom lenses (such as on the Canon 1014 xl-s) was to zoom in to maximum telephoto, focus, then zoom back out to wide angle or whatever. With manual focusing of, say, Nikon lenses (such as the 17-35mm f2.8), is this focusing technique practical ... or does the focus change on these Nikkors when you change the focal length? Many thanks for any advice.

With film cameras and these anamorphic adapters, such as the SLR Magic anamorphot adapter, how practical is it to actually achieve an accurate double-focus technique while peering at the (sometimes dim) ground glass image? With an adapter, that needs both camera lens and adapter to be separately focused, is this really a case of 'give up now', don't waste your money, energy and time ..... or is this doable with practice and patience? Maybe with film cameras the only truly practical solution is a single lens, made for anamorphic, eg. no adapter screwed into the front of a spherical lens. The reason I ask is that I have to use Nikon lenses. There's no single-focus anamorphic lens made for that mount that I know of.

Hello, I'd like to take the ground glass out in my Arri IIC and make some marks on it with a chinagraph pencil. Does it need any recalibration afterwards to make sure everything is lined up exactly? Is it best if a camera technician does this, or can a typical operator without much camera tech knowledge do this easily? Thank you.

Uber cool contribution to the knowledge on this, Phil. My thanks! Feel free to post any more shots if so moved to do so ?

It would be interesting if a good, budget anamorphic solution for S16 becomes available. The Sirui anamorphic 1.33x lens looks great, and it's designed for M4/3 so should be fine, but currently there doesn't seem to be a suitable adapter that will fit it to a C mount camera such as a S16-modified Bolex Rx-5. The other solution would be an adapter that fits onto a Nikon lens and that could then go into a C mount to Nikon mount adapter. I occasionlly get really fired up by thoughts of anamorphic ... but maybe I should stick to my spherical plans as that is going to be so much easier.

Beautiful. Well done.

Thank you. Yes, David has covered a point I was wondering about. The table from Panavision is very helpful but I was wondering more about people's tendency in what they used themselves, which depends on the shot and the particular context, etc. Here is a tentative plan, for 2 perf wide, standard and telephoto, given David's comment on the tendency to compensate by increasing field of view slightly. Wide - 15 mm (possibly less focal length if not too distorted) Standard - 28 mm Portrait or slight telephoto - 50 mm The 2 perf frame is the same as 4 perf 1.85 widescreen in width, and therefore slightly less wide than the APS-C sensor which is (close enough) about the same as S35 (for my purposes, 'close enough' is fine). So the above seems to fit reasonably well with my online reading of typical focal lengths. For wider than, say, a focal length of 16 mm, in full frame 35 mm we are starting to get into 'fish eye' lenses, which introduce much distortion. But because the 2 perf frame crops out most of the image circle this is going to be significantly less of a problem?

Hi there, what would be a typical range of lens focal lengths for 2 perf? I'm wondering actually if the approximate 2.40:1 widescreen aspect ratio influences perception of focal length to some degree. Coming from a Super 8 and 16mm background, I've never photographed in such a widescreen format before. Also, does anyone have any experience of the Nikon zooms that are sometimes used for video, and might be appropriate for shooting on 2 perf film, such as the 17-35mm lens with manually adjustable aperture ring?

Thank you Volker, that is marvellous to see this rig. And Webster that is fantastic additional information! Volker, let me think about this and I will get back to you very soon :)

Simply, I see it that the Corporation is the monster. In truth, it shouldn't have created these Replicants. If the Corporation had been morally perfect, or had been guided by truly moral principles, it would have been fine to create them. But the Corp was corrupt because it didn't care about people. Having been made by, in effect, a monster, in their truly awful plight, they murdered to escape. Deckard was put on the case, a mere man. He found love. The two escaped a dreadful world, run by a dreadful Corporate system. That's the story for me. Best wishes! You did make me think deeply about it, though. Thank you Satsuki.

If the Replicants murder, then they are murderers. It doesn't matter who made them, because in the premise of the imaginary film world they are depicted, rightly, as true people. Therefore they must be dealt with as murderers. That's where the issue of trust comes in. Who is the murderer? The State, or the Replicants, or anyone or everyone potentially. It becomes too difficult to figure out. I see themes in today's world where people ask where is basis for moral authority. It's indeed a wonderful question to ask. I must leave it there. After all, I'm only human ? I can't answer these deeply complex puzzles any more deeply for now than I've here attempted to do ?

Yes, I think you're right. Batty should have been arrested, with dignity and justice, and treated like a person since clearly that's what the Replicants are/were. And put on trial by a learned and fair judge, according to the law. As for who has moral authority, that comes down as always to trust and faith. Rachael is a real person, and you can tell because she can love. That can't really be faked. Or it can for a time but when the chips are down the truth comes out. She was too sincere to be a fake. Even if her memories were fake ones it didn't matter. At the end, Batty showed that he was a real man ... because out of a sort of love, he decided not to kill Deckard. Quite deep, maybe.