Jon O'Brien

https://www.kodak.com/gb/en/motion/blog/blog_post/?contentid=4295006106

Re the film vs digital thing, the strong film advocates of the 2017/18 'debates' are less vocal here lately it seems. Too busy or something ... or gone over to all-digital. Has the debate been won? Are the film-only people like the statue of 'The dying Gaul', as in, utterly done in? No way, they live on, surging ahead on distant yonder hill ... (a bit like 'The Man from Snowy River', if you know that poem).

I've given up debating, even as a humble member of ye little olde audience and as an amateur in comparison to the pros here. People, just do what you want ... and what you can. But here is an article I derived some pleasure in reading, for those interested in musing upon 35mm film's tenacious ability to survive the cinema revolution that saw multi-hundred-thousand-dollar relics of the engineer's art (eg. 35/70 film projectors) end up in tiny little, dusty, privately-owned garden sheds like I saw the other day ... patiently awaiting for their day 'in the sun' once more. https://filmmakermagazine.com/105050-31-films-shot-on-35mm-released-in-2017/#.XC0_1VwzbIU

Yep, I bet 1.33 would look stunning. Cropped to 2.40:1 is quite grainy in my opinion, but sure, if that's the look the filmmakers want then that's what they want.

On further reflection, I should have typed "movies in formats smaller than 4 perf anamorphic". I didn't see 'Far from the Madding Crowd' at the cinema, so my comment doesn't apply to it.

You could check out these people. They are very film oriented. http://www.videofilmsolutions.com/digital-intermediates--printing

To each his own, but at the cinema for features I prefer the look of 35mm in dcp :) I find 16mm just a tad too grainy so far for the features I've seen but it's all personal preference of course. Also I sometimes find the 16mm look in dcp sort of very slightly 'dark' or underexposed in the dcps I've seen, compared to the digitally-shot previews etc before the main show, but I still can't figure out why that is. If someone could enlighten me on this I'd be grateful. Just projector brightness levels I guess, but still, should it be necessary to adjust brightness for film-shot movies? In 2019 I have to get to some other cinemas to properly check out digital projection of movies shot on film. I can't judge this from just one cinema I frequent.

It can be difficult to track down 35mm and 70mm film screenings here, but last time I saw 70mm not too long ago I was again struck by the look of what I was seeing. It was so satisfying to watch the movie. It felt like an event. When I go back to 'normal' dcp screenings I notice that, at least at my regular cinema, movies shot on film look noticeably less good than the ones shot on digital (to my eye). But film on dvd at home looks great on my tv screen (eg. 'Far from the Madding Crowd', 2015). By the way, does anyone know if 'Phantom Thread' was shot on 4 perf spherical?

How did it look in dcp compared with 70mm?

Perhaps some of my experience may be useful to you - though I've been shooting Super 16 (on a Bolex Rx5). I have two lenses on it, a Switar 16mm Rx and a Nikkor 50mm on a C mount adapter. Both lenses are great but I actually really like the look I get with the Nikkor. Beautiful, with subtle rendering of colours. I kept it stopped down a bit, plus also being 50mm there weren't any problems. A very good and low-cost lens set, as I already had the Nikkor. The Switar only cost me about $250 AUD.

What type of batteries were used in the original Arriflex battery belts for the IIC camera and other models of circa 1980s? Would these be NiCad? Thanks for any advice!

Sounds a bit like short story competitions. Does your short story ever get read? Probably - but that first paragraph better be good.

Very nice look. Well done.

And the footage. And that's the long and the short of it, to be sure. Well 'tis that time of year.

The title shot of 'We of the Never Never' is a beautiful helicopter shot over a vast Australian plain, straight ahead and catching up and flying over a horseman on a galloping horse. A shot that really shines and lifts your spirit. The Australian cinematographer Gary Hansen strapped a hardwood plank on top of the skids underneath the chopper and lay there with the camera because "he wanted the shot." They say he was set to become one of world's great cinematographers but tragically was killed just months later after finishing the shoot - sad to say while doing more helicopter work while filming a commercial. He did an amazing and wonderful job on 'We of the Never Never'. Well done Gary!

Some interesting things in there, that raised a smile. “The optics in the projection room, compared to what I knew from my time as a photographer, looked horrifying to me. It had pincushion distortion and color fringing several millimeters wide. It seemed useless! But those lenses were used to make great movies ..." “Henryk was not just a cameraman. He was a manufacturer and a skilled producer, and very tied into the industry. He convinced Vittorio Storaro to shoot anamorphic, to make it look more amazing, not so clean, more emotional ..." "Henryk had a very good eye." I find it interesting how lenses (and formats) can have an emotional effect on a film that goes beyond technical specifications.

I suspect the new Kodak Super 8 camera will sell well enough for it to be worthwhile for Kodak. It is just too much of a 'different' anomaly and also 'new' and trendy, and there's growing interest in film. There's just nothing else out there to quite compete with it. And shiny and new smelling too out of the box. Not a grotty old camera from untold ages long ago.

Thanks John. Was it 4 perf like Scope?

Camera was an Arri BL-3.

Technovision - what exactly is (or was) it? I've done some looking of course but so far haven't found a clear answer. Some on the internet say it was an Italian version of 2-perf, and others say it was an anamorphic process. The reason I ask is that I'm interested in the 1982 Australian production of 'We of the Never Never', which at the end credits says filmed in the Technovision process.

That's how everyone figures it out. A famous line from Indiana Jones, too.

I've been wondering the same thing. I hope to make a movie, but I want to write, direct and shoot it also. Or maybe write and photograph it, and get someone else to direct. I thought maybe put "A film by ... (me)" at the start. With actor's names etc. Then fade in. At the end, apart from full credits with all involved, processing, film, colour etc, just have a single credit "Written, photographed and directed by". That way doesn't look like you're trying to sell tickets on yourself. There's nothing narcissistic about - it's just practical. People want to know who did what. Who made the thing.

Except for one extremely brief shot where the camera tracks forward a short distance, the whole of 'Deliverance' seems to be composed of static shots and simple pans on a tripod. No fancy camera moves. But a powerful film nevertheless with great cinematography by Vilmos Zsigmond. I thought it worth comment that sometimes the simple style works best. I don't know how the focus was achieved though, with the close-up shots of the canoe action approaching camera. Depth of field/lens choice maybe would have helped a lot.

Creative endeavor is like water flowing out to the sea - eventually somewhere it breaks through. But just to get started and get your head above the parapet you need a leg-up of some kind. What if you want to learn guitar but you're a nobody and can't play a note. You will have to scrape together the money for a guitar, strings and book or you're never going to be a guitarist, of any sort.

True, but (I'm sure you agree) 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' was actually an immensely well-made, rich and quality 'small' movie with real charm in its characters and story. We don't see much of that earthy, practical-and-optical fx type adventure film today with wit and humour both in the lines and the 'in-camera' gags. I remember the trailer for Raiders in the cinema. It looked like garbage but turned out to be a classic. Okay so it wasn't truly a small movie but it wasn't a mega blockbuster.