Jon O'Brien

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.

To me, fwiw, the original Blade Runner is really a bit of a light-weight love story. I know a lot of people see it very differently -- they go on about the lead Replicant who dies at the top of the building in the rain, and saves the detective/govt hit man at the last moment after having just terrified him out of his wits. But I always found the lead Replicant a bit of a boring case. He was a cranky guy who spat the dummy and murdered some people because he had a legitimately bad deal in life. And at the last moment redeemed himself ... but only just a bit. He didn't do much for me. Too angry, too animalistic, he went on about the grand sights he'd seen but it didn't seem to make him a better person. He ruined his moral situation by lashing out with violence. Deckard of course was hardly an angel .. a paid killer of 'trouble' people. But to me the real story was Deckard and Rachael. They were two outsiders who found each other. And the CEO of the Corporation was a scary freak. He was the true monster of the movie. That's what it was really about, to me. Those two found each other, and got out.

I agree with Satsuki too. So often the latest films kind of miss the main point of the story -- you know, the 'human bit' that, really, films are actually supposed to be about. Films that go off on esoteric technical tangents involving bizarre and frankly pretty boring biological explorations of what-if often fail to really become classics. Films that focus on the frailty of the human condition, things like love and vulnerability and that sort of thing are the films that people remember. Also, with BR 2049, being a Noir genre type film, I think (and this is personal taste, sure) that shooting on film, giving a more grainy, slightly grungy look would have helped. I clearly remember what the anamorphic 35mm print looked like in cinemas when the original came out. It was just a tad fuzzy, grainy. That look would be hard to replicant sorry I mean replicate haha but it could be done today with, say, 2 perf 35mm and choosing lenses carefully. Add a bit more grain. There are ways. That's my opinion. Or watch it in cinemas with actual 35mm projectors, even better.

It looks great! I will seek it out. I wonder if Netflix only buys a certain aspect ratio. Does Netflix every show 2.39 shows or similar wide ratios? Pardon my ignorance ... I'm mainly a DVD kind of person.

Great to know, Shane. I would really like to get a 16mm projector. Only thing is my camera is Super 16 and projectors modified for this are difficult to find.

Then there's the option of shooting spherical, ideally on Super 16 (there are the occasional converted Bolex's around at a good price), and making non-permanent marks on the ground glass for a wider aspect ratio. I used two pieces of tape, top and bottom, but a chinagraph pencil can be used also I heard. Then the image is later cropped digitally, or if projecting I'm guessing it should be possible to get someone to make a widescreen gate for the projector. I gave up on the idea of 16mm anamorphic. Filmmaking is difficult enough with everything you've got to do, especially if working with actors, to be fiddling around with home made anamorphic and focusing with it and so on. Unless you have incredible patience and time. If going the rental Arri 416 route with Hawk lenses apparently they can be difficult to get hold of -- at least over here.

How deep do you want to go, Robin ? No, not been at the port. I was speaking of light in the sense of what we know of it from quantum physics. Yes, cinematographers and people like that know all about what light is, in the sense of dealing with it and what happens when we do this and what happens when we do that, and how it can be measured in all sorts of ways. But I was talking about the stuff of what light actually is. It's a pretty surprising thing, light. It behaves as both wave and particle, and appears to alter what it does according to context. It freaks out those people who like to smugly think we know everything in science. Such an idea is laughable. We know very little. As I said, we live in an arrogant age of science. We have our neat computer models that reassure us that we live in a reasonable world. We don't. The real world is scary and unknown and contemporary man can be uncomfortable with that, because modern man has lost faith in ...... I won't even say it. That's how I see it. Here is something that might be of interest. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/what-does-quantum-theory-actually-tell-us-about-reality/

How light falls on and reflects off something can be different depending on source. It's not pseudo science it's just art. Artists can use whatever term or word that does it for them. No, I'm not a pro and not even in visual arts generally but I do come from a family of 'em, fwiw. I think texture is a cool word to use. Some light just looks a bit different ... we are all saying this. Science can come into art, definitely. Ultimately, it must. But the two are wholly separate fields and feel and emotion are entirely to be trusted. But everyone here already knows this. Just saying. Also, we live in an era of a somewhat arrogance in science. Do we really know what light is? In fact we do not. It's still a bit mysterious to pin down. And thank heavens there are still mysteries that just elude us.

In the office where I work we've set up a largish room as a TV studio/filming studio. The graphics guy and myself who've been given the task of setting up the camera and lighting used tungsten lights recently and blew the power in the room -- luckily not the power to the whole office which would not have gone down well. Admittedly, the three lights we had on were all coming from the one set of power sockets on the wall. Anyway, it was a new experience for me. So, yes, tungsten lights draw a lot of power. But nice looking, warm light. Learning all the time ...

How did the shoot go? Not just a great case you made, but what a beauty of a camera. Ahh, sigh, a 235! A dream. That, and an ST and an LT. Yep. Just the thing.

This is great news, Philip! Thanks for your extremely helpful input on this. My knowledge of filmmaking continues to grow, with such help. I will start researching lenses that are affordable. For Australian readers: does anyone know if film development is still available here? I will check the Neglab website. Film scanning is available at Cameraquip, Melbourne.

By the way, with a 17-35 zoom on the turret, can anyone suggest a fine second prime lens to also go on turret? Something wider than the Switar 16mm I've got. Or maybe that's about as wide as you can practically go with S16 without spending a fortune. The good thing about the Switar is that it's a Rx lens, so if I need more light getting in I've got at least one lens there. For telephoto, I've got Nikkor primes if I need a longer focus lens than 35mm.

Hi Philip, Thanks for all of your great points you raise. It sounds as though one of these 17-35 f/2.8 shouldn't be too heavy, if using the turret screw cap and locking device as outlined by Volker, above. He's done a lot of filming with some heavier Nikkors. The f/2.8 would have to be stopped down a bit anyway, on the reflex Bolex as these are designed for use with the special Rx lenses. Non-Rx lenses have to be stopped down generally to around f4 to get around the prism effect. Because this is Australia, with lots of light, and I'm usually filming outdoors in sunlight, these lenses should be fine. So far the focus breathing hasn't irked me and it's possible I could pay someone to de-click the aperture rings. After all I hear there's rather a good lens tech available in my country but I don't know if he'd be interested in this work on the side ? Then again, I wonder if I could get by without de-clicking the aperture rings. Would devalue the lens for resale. Jon

Hi Volker, I'm very happy with the camera, it's in excellent condition. You actually gave me one of those locking screw caps for the turret, along with the Nikon lens mount (thank you!). Do you happen to know much about a good electric motor for this model - probably it will be a second hand motor from ebay. If I get an electric motor, I won't have to shift the turret to wind the mechanism. If the turrent and C mount is strong enough for a small, lightweight Nikon zoom then really there's no need for me to think about changing to a camera with a stronger bayonet mount. I will have to do some research and see if there's an affordable Nikon zoom that can go wide enough for a reasonably medium lens for S16. How nice to know my camera has already been on some filming adventures in Australia! Also, is it possible for you to post a photograph, or link to a site that shows the large Bolex compendium that you mention? Best wishes, Jon

Reassuring that they can easily tell the difference but, maybe, even more reassuring that they care.

Thanks Simon and Aapo. Best solution is to stick with the little Switar 16mm I've got on it, and for telephoto just use some Nikkors. I need one more lens for the turret. I'd so much prefer a zoom on it. I grew up with zooms, with Super ? but ah well. That's life. Such a drag clicking that turret around ... life's tough sometimes ain't it. Just joking. One thing I'd really like to get is an electric motor for it. No words can describe the frustration and stress of trying to direct actors who want to crack jokes and engage the cinematographer/director in witty repartee while he's trying to change the turret, wind the mechanism, put the turret back again to the correct lens, take the reading ......

It's really simple. Okay, covid-19 is here. It's the new reality. The other reality is that people are really suffering and people can't pay their rent. Some people are going crazy. Countries have two choices. Get back to work and live with the damn thing or convert to socialism somehow and create a new world order. Those are the choices. I don't mind wearing a bloody face mask. I couldn't care less either way.

I laughed really loud and long when I read Stephen when you said they must be on acid, some posts back on this thread ? I totally agree. I mean, frankly speaking, I just don't get it. These dudes are supposed to be creative. They're supposed to be able to notice, you know, arty things. No .... I just don't get it. Red? I mean, really. I'm sorry, but really?

Great information. I'm looking at the Bescor 12V Li-ion battery pack in your second link, above. It would be a time-saving solution for me.

For years, with 16mm, I always wanted a Super 16 Bolex SBM, with the strong bayonet mount. I ended up getting a Rx-5, with the 3 lens turret. The fellow in Germany who sold it to me also supplied a Nikon lens mount to C mount adapter. This has actually turned out to be great, as my two 35mm cameras also have Nikon lens mounts. Anyone know how strong the C mount is on a Bolex lens turret? How heavy a lens can you fit on it. I'm thinking of buy some cheaper second hand Nikkors on ebay, maybe some zooms. The turret looks really thin and not all that inspiring in terms of robustness. What thinks thou? Okay to put some reasonably heavy zooms on a C mount long term without a, so to speak, sagging occurring?

Thanks guys! So, really, all that is needed is some kind of 12V battery source ... ideally, with a fuse in the line somewhere. All the thing about whether it's lead acid or Li-ion, or whether it's 7 amp hours, or more, is immaterial? I'm just really concerned I'm going to fry the wiring or motor inside my Arris. That's unlikely or impossible, as long as it's any battery, with enough oomph in the amps, that is 12V?? If that's the case, I'm very close to shooting some test footage.

I will personally put on the ice-cream guy's hat, serve behind the counter, pour drinks, chat with the chatty couple with the lady in the small black dress, serve cocktails from the bar, then whip into the projectionist's booth and lace up the projector and press run. We can do this.

Lock and load, people. Look sharp ....

Thank you, Dom. I rang a camera rental company last year, and there were battery boxes up for sale, and I got the price. I might ring again soon. I will look into the other options you mention, you're very helpful. Tyler, they're a IIC and 35-3. Probably my two favourite MOS cameras. Built to last. My dream as a teenager was to be a cinematographer with 35mm so when these cameras became affordable I went for it.

Exactly! Some people just love going out. Some people like staying home. I find it quite amusing, in a way (and not amusing in other ways) how those sci-fi movies I used to watch in the 70s, some of them, were almost a bit prophetic. The way society is going in some ways reminds of the 70s movie 'Logan's Run'. Holograms, instant entertainment in everyone's homes, computers and computer geeks running the place, amazing focus on looks and fake beauty, everyone cooped-up indoors, a soft at the same time callous nanny state (though, those 'sandmen' in Logan's Run are pretty cool with their nifty blue-muzzle-flare guns with magnesium-flash bullet hits... wow, did I just write that, I should be in practical vfx) .... and all the while the sun shining outdoors, clean as a whistle, and people don't go out into it and smell the roses. It's all good.