Jon O'Brien

There is Neglab in Sydney. Werner Winkelmann is the manager.

I must say though, I'm over my objections with digital cameras, and I concede that they are great. But for my own films, short and insignificant as they turn out to be (possibly), I will be shooting on film because it's part of the fibre of my being. It's my choice. I've got 600 ft of 50D in the fridge, so what do you expect. Film to me is the future, and I know a lot of others feel the same way. Currently scouting for locations.

Where I live there are a lot of people who love movies and like seeing them on the big screen. It's true, most don't even know about the digital/film thing but they like discussing beauty of image and cinematography after the show. I think it's great that we have digital and film because it provides variety - subtle, but it's there. To my eye, the new phones and tablets are perfect for exhibiting film movies on. Sure they might be compressed making it impossible to see even a hint of grain but the image quality is good enough on a good phone to see subtle but important differences between digital and film. That's my view and I' sticking with it ? Anyway, it always comes back to: what does the filmmaker care about?

A subtle comment, cleverly done, though strictly speaking not quite true. Everyone outside of cinematography does care - they just don't know why they care. As was said above, they expect the maker to care, so they can sit back and enjoy. How can those who don't know much about art and the creative process care about these things? It's not a strong argument to take.

The thing is, the whole point really of the cinema theatre is a social experience and it retains very high value in that one thing that it's got. Even if you go to the movies alone which is totally fine it is still a social experience. I enjoy it - unless it's a crummy audience or too many rude slobs there that day etc. Went to see 'Swimming with men' (great movie!!!) the other day with friends and we had a really nice time. It's still a lot of fun to go to the movies. We were probably the youngest ones in the cinema but if you watch a good movie with a good fellow audience it's much better than sitting at home. But agreed, it is good to be able to adjust the look of the image at home.

This is what I was thinking too. I don't know much about Hitchcock's knowledge of photography, but if he did a bit of still 35mm photography he might simply have meant his "natural" or normal focal length lens transferred to motion picture and his cinematographers of course knew what he meant by that.

I can't figure out why, at my local cinema, movies shot on digital camera look brighter than (some) movies that were shot on film. This observation doesn't apply to the recent Star Wars movies shot on 35mm but mainly to lower-budget film-shot movies. Does the movie need to be visually checked by the projectionist and brightness levels manually adjusted or is it all programmed into the DCP? One movie I saw, the Ext daytime scenes - many of them - looked atrociously dim in my opinion.

I love the black bars top and bottom. But that's just me.

What if you are editing/grading scanned film only? Is Davinci, a pretty advanced set up, still the best? I'm wondering if it might not be best just to pay someone to do my grading/editing - with me looking over their shoulder - rather than pay for all the high power computer hardware. I'm not making a lot of films at the moment so perhaps that's the most cost effective solution for now.

I suppose come to think of it you could easily fake Super 8, if you wanted that look, by cropping 16mm closely. Not if you are projecting though. And the image would't be exactly the same because of the different pressure plate and other factors.

I was 100% happy with the look of the digitally-projected 'The Force Awakens' and 'The Last Jedi', both largely shot on 35mm film. No complaints at all. For a couple of lower-budget pictures I've seen in the cinema lately I wasn't completely happy with the digital projection as the picture was sometimes too dim. Maybe the projectionist didn't bother to turn up the lamp. But I happen to think, on the whole, that digital projection of real film is great. I saw '2001: A Space Odyssey' in 70mm recently and it looked great but, to me, it wasn't necessarily better than the look of the two recent Star Wars films digitally projected. So there's hope! - as Princess Leia would say.

Sure, but read again what David posted, a few posts back. He and Manu nailed it on this thread. George Lucas (yep, sure, it was he that did so much to push for full digital process) used to just make the movies he wanted to make. He didn't care about the audience. Yes they pay the money and it's wonderful to hear their applause if applaud they do. But no one at the very top cares too much about audience, in any creative field. I'm not saying that that's an outlook that is necessarily a wise one to take for anyone (Mel Brooks was literally penniless at one stage) - but it is, nevertheless, a defining characteristic of movers and shakers.

Yeah, it's really interesting once you start looking into the economics of specific pathways in cinematography. 35mm, 16mm, 8mm, digital. I think you would choose Super 8 because you are after that specific look. It might not be much difference in price though. The equipment costs less.

Of course, content is the most important ... but it matters what you play it on!! I like Mozart on violin, piano, things like that. Bach was of the opinion that the type of instrument was critically important to the musician/the artist. Good heavens, people, film and digital can co-exist in the world of cinematography! Film doesn't have to be done in like some sort of failing dinosaur. Because it's not a failing dinosaur. It's vibrant, young, and hip, and its prospects are on the rise. So is digital's. It's a myth that medium isn't relevant to content - just ask any musician. What's up with the cinematography world that there are these curmudgeonly firebrand defenders of digital? The two can happily co-exist. Calm down, all ye, I pray.

Manu, man of the thread!

I think point 3. was a major factor everywhere. It was the experienced DPs and directors who'd known too many sleepless nights on location worrying about the day's footage getting lost or damaged in transit, or whatever, or obsessing over whether that particular shot worked out and will they have to shoot it again. When digital came along it was an easier life for these very experienced people. And yes, some people prefer the look of digital: that clean, clinical, plastic, glassy, metallic perfection. They want a world that is like that. It's their aesthetic preference. Go to their homes and see what art is on their walls.

But it looks better, no? ?

What does a movie, shot on 2 or 3 perf, look like on the big screen when printed onto 35mm print stock via a DI and exhibited on a film projector? Does it look great? Is it almost as good a look as all-photochemical workflow and projection eg. 4 perf anamorphic? Reason I ask is that 4 perf cameras may eventually become more rare than 2 and 3 perf conversions.

Didn't Panavision build two shiny new 35mm cameras for 'The Force Awakens' and later SW pictures? If true, that speaks of an active, creative and 'industrial' commitment to film hardware in their camera division.

If my budget could stretch a bit further to a projector yes I'd be in to reversal projection in a flash. At the moment I'm aiming for things that can pay themselves back hopefully, so I'm really into photochemical scanned to digital - which I love the look of too. I actually love the latest digital technology. I look at the latest phones, tablets and tvs and think, wow, imagine my film footage showing on that absolutely wonderful device. 4K cinematography on the latest tvs I see in department stores I find amazing but am absolutely uninterested in as a medium for my own filmmaking. Most of my filmmaking in my teens/early twenties was with full photochemical workflow, editing, the lot. So great to hear the sound of a projector. Maybe one day again!

I've always liked Nikons. Good company.

One would think that modern factory digitization could only help new fabrication of analogue-era type technology (eg. cogs and wheels and physical things like that). I could imagine some tech person getting an Arri geared part with complex helical design and plonking it in a 3D scanner, analysing to the nth degree on screen to within a thousandth of an inch or less (whatever level of precision is required), dialling in the ideal steel alloy recipe needed, and computers go to work to mill the parts. Casting, too. I'm not talking a factory set up for just cameras - I mean a company with infrasructure already in place to mill whatever kind of part you want. Including film gates. Yes, they'd need to employ staff who were film camera experts. I would think this is doable, economically. Arri could do it, if it's economic to do so. Interest in film seems to be regaining some ground in the world ...

Great, will definitely check it out Phillip. Nice looking camera. Do you find the tripod thread on the base of the handle makes tripod shots a bit shaky? I notice that the Elmo can remove the handle.

Thank you for all the advice. Very helpful. Regarding Super 8, how many scanning businesses offer a digital stabilisation - is this common or a rare service, and is it expensive? I've seen digitally-stabilised Super 8 online that looked like it was shot on a pin-registered camera. The sprocket hole was moving around though. With Super 8 I would like to intercut with 16mm and possibly digital, heavily-cropped to accentuate the grain and so on. Been done before many times of course. But I still don't really like the slight vertical jitter of Super 8 which would be accentuated in a big crop.

It seems that shooting a feature on film was always an extremely expensive thing. Not much has changed - but actually, shooting on film is probably slightly more accessible now to someone new to it. The cameras became quite easy to pick up, for many years. Now it's not so easy to get a good one - unless maybe the older MOS ones. Even those seem to be rarer now than they were, on ebay. I think the digital revolution has actually helped film in many ways. The digital projection is slowly improving. It's fun to combine real film with digital work processes. Digital cameras are great as they let so many people learn high end cinematography as Tyler notes, but so many people now with cameras. I could have bought an UMP but decided to put my available budget into film gear. Don't know if it will ever pay for itself but I couldn't see much point trying to compete with all the other camera people out there with their digital cameras. As ever, I figured I may as well do what I'm interested in, which is film - even if it ended up being just 1 minute of Super 8 every year, and no more. But hopefully I will get more done in cinematography than that. But if not I don't mind, and if it doesn't work out I think I shouldn't have too many problems selling my gear. I've done a lot of research to ensure it's good gear. The digital revolution has made it affordable and I'm grateful for that.