Jon O'Brien

That's a great way of putting it. I hadn't thought of it that way before.

This sort of thing has happened before. Films were getting a little bit tired at one point, you know (and I've mentioned this before) with films like 'The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes' which I went to see a re-run of as a kid, then along came the disaster movie blockbusters like Poseidon Adventure, Earthquake and Towering Inferno. And then that fashion started to totter briefly and the feature movie industry looked a little uncertain, then quickly along came things like King Kong and Logan's Run in 1976 and suddenly ... BOOM ...Star Wars in 1977. Followed rapidly by Spielberg's rise (I think I got that chronology right). That feature movie boom starting around 1977 arose from someone finally giving the bright new young kids the reins and the bucks to make some big pictures. But the thing is that Lucas and Spielberg were truly dyed-in-the-wool real filmmakers. They actually strongly represented movie-making tradition. I suspect if studios handed older-teens to early twenty somethings the filmmaking reins today what we'd see would be some sort of internet/film/video game type amalgam. I'm not so sure it would be a leg-up for filmmaking, unless it fell into the hands of young people who were truly devoted to traditional filmmaking as we understand it. When I talk to younger people today at work etc they all seem to be games focused. I talk films but they talk games and internet.

About the only superhero movies I enjoyed and still enjoy is Superman I (1978) and to some extent Superman II. That's because the character was really an archetype of someone who is truly good. That was in fact part of the joke of the movie(s). There's religious undertones, pretty obvious really, in Superman. He was a light-hearted allegory of God in human form come to save us from ourselves. Of course good entertaining pictures don't have to be about 'nice' things though - I'm not saying that. Great small pictures can explore dark themes as that's part of our world. Personally I'd want to make pictures though that do offer hope at the end and some kind of uplifting conclusion. The original 'Alien' was a very creative picture that was very dark but did have a reassuring ending (forgetting about the films that followed).

What I've observed lately just around here is that there is an audience for quality, 'artistic' (for want of a better term), character-and-story driven 'small' shows for older audiences, definitely not in the 16-25 age bracket. I think people around middle-aged and older (I'm early 50s) are wanting to get out of the house and see a nice, good movie that is entertaining, informative and about people and about life (not about, let's face it, pretty crazy superhero types who almost verge into the narcissistic). These audiences want to get out and get a meal and/or a coffee, have some fun, and feel that they were entertained and saw something that was good quality (literally, the look of it too) as they walk back to the car. Beautiful photography is a part of this (I deliberately write photography to emphasize image look). When I went to see 'Darkest Hour' not all that long ago the cinema was packed out like a sardine can. My friends and I arrived just before 'opening curtain' and I must have gotten pretty much the only seat left. So the tent poles are good for the industry/jobs but they also provide an industry infrastructure for the smaller more human-interest type shows as they train up crews and actors. I think there's a real market there for smaller pictures that are excellent quality all round. Films that would make good plays. Things like that.

Well, the mega productions create jobs for hundreds of people, which is really great. For instance at Village Roadshow studios at Oxenford, Gold Coast, Australia. Not far from me.

If that business model starts to fail, the mega-CGI tent-poles, then they will have to come up with something else. Go back to what movies were like prior to such massive fx blockbusters? You know, the difference between Transformers and Spiderman, and Babette's Feast and Sunday Too Far Away?

Randy, is the black screen for reducing light on the actor's face?

Very informative, thank you. I recently watched Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home too. I've never much been into the Star Trek movies but I did enjoy that one, directed by Nimoy.

I watched Superman (1978) again the other day and wondered what filter the DP used for that interesting look. I think use of such filters were fairly common in feature movies around that time. But it was a different look to what Lucas got in Star Wars IV.

How does the Bolex EL compare with the EBM? I've got a Bolex Rx5 S16 with two lenses and I think it's a wonderful camera. Absolutely everything is manual. I find it rewarding and get a sense of achievement that I got the exposure and focus and everything else right, while managing to still do some minimal direction. One problem with spring-wound I found is that with the turret out to the side you have to either move the turret back or shorten the winding lever. Now on a shoot with clouds blowing across and trying to catch the right light that's tough to get the thing wound in time. But it's all good. A lot of fun all up.

For story it looked like a picturebook that might have run to 16 pages of twelve words per page in large print and simple language for early learners. That's fair enough but looked a bit scary for intended audience but I could be wrong. Dr Seuss meets Avatar.

Making feature movies is really much like pro orchestras in big cities. To do the job properly the government has to step in and help financially. Without help of some kind it's difficult to see big projects get off the ground unless there's an established and flourishing industry. Occasionally that does actually happen as governments realise that it injects life into communities. Directors have to keep insisting on film if they want to shoot on it. Kodak will build labs if there's a demand. Easy to say, I know.

Hi Prashantt, I agree S16 often looks great for feature movies. On another unrelated note, but relevant to this thread, one thing I've noticed in theatres is that with features shot on film sometimes the brightness levels with digital projection seems slightly out of calibration. This is something I need to look into more. A few movies shot on film in recent years look great when viewed on a tv or computer screen but not always so great at the cinema. But many such films look totally great - such as The Force Awakens which looked brilliant in my opinion at the cinema. I noticed this slightly darker look with two films I went to see recently and I don't understand yet what the cause is - perhaps it's simply a problem with the projector at the local cinema. At times the image looks slightly underexposed. Could it possibly be related to the scanning? I wouldn't have thought so. Images shot on digital look brighter and more saturated (at my local theatre at least). Just a projection issue. Curious. I actually wonder if the heavier grain in some movies shot on film actually needs to be compensated for by adjusting for projection brightness. Almost if the grain blocks out some light. Please excuse my arty and non-scientific speculations. With regards to aspect ratio I've always been most interested in 2.40:1 or in 2.20:1. It's just a personal preference. My favourite films are nearly all in these ratios.

I did some shooting last year on a Bolex S16 and made a mistake, but it was one that turned out okay. I kept stuffing my Sekonic meter into my jeans pocket and didn't realise that the film speed dial actually turns very easily. So by the end of the afternoon's shoot I realised I'd been overexposing the 50D by a stop or more. But the way it came out, after a bit of digital correction, my musician friend whom I shot the film for actually liked the overexposed look. Says it gives the short film an ethereal, slightly other-worldly look, like in a dream. Will try and post somewhere here when he gets the soundtrack done. Now the meter goes into a pouch on my belt or on a lanyard. No more tight jeans pockets. Filming with older wind up cameras with manual exposure etc can be stressful because the actor or actors are often used to point and shoot cameras and don't understand that the cinematographer actually has to think and prepare and take a lot of care. I always found a huge difference between shooting Super 8 and 16mm.

"... we've never really had the opportunity..." Amazing the good things that can start with just a simple conversation. For everything there is a season. I will look forward to seeing this.

The motivation is creative freedom, but finances come into it too. I don't have connections with other filmmakers yet so I don't know any DPs who work with film - which is what I want to do. I'm very interested in operating the camera myself, framing the shots, making lighting decisions, as well as directing. Here's how I see it. If someone gets into their stride then you start to make creative partnerships, so you eventually meet someone with whom you can happily work, for instance you really like their work as a cinematographer, and they like working on your pictures, and it goes from there. The teamwork and trust for creative ability grows, and like you said input from many grows a mutual inspiration. More hands make light work. But I'm not in the biz, so if I do get into it in a bigger way it's all on my own for now. I don't have a filmmaking blog.

I had a teacher at school who told us in Film & TV that one day he happened to see in the window of a nondescript second hand shop a very expensive, highly sought-after Leica lens in pristine condition that was perfect for his camera. There was no price on it and, voice trembling but trying to look relaxed, he asked what they wanted for it. What are you going to use it for, they asked. "Ooh, I dunno," he said, "I just like the look of it ... might use it as a makeshift magnifying glass for my stamps or something." He got it for $5.

That's what I want to do. Pretty much down to the last detail.

Are there directors who, if they could spread themselves thin enough, would ideally take over the cinematography as well? Though not a pro I once planned to be, and could never figure out how I could direct without being behind the camera, or be the DP and also direct. I think cinematography is so intimately associated with the creation of a movie that for some directors it must be a frustration. But that's the reality of working in big features, that one person can't do both - in most cases.

I read somewhere recently that post production generally is moving over to PC. I don't know how true that is.

I have a Bolex RX5 Super 16 and am thinking of getting a 400' magazine and electric motor for it from ebay. Is there anything to look out for when buying these? So far I've only ever shot 100' so this is a step into the unknown.

Just don't fly too close to the sun.

This seems to be a bit of a conundrum or 'issue' for many, getting a film look.

16mm is a great format because it has its feet in both camps, in a way. It works well for small amateur projects, even for people completely starting out, and for not much more in cost than Super 8, but also, and I think it's probably correct to say, is increasingly being used all the way up to top productions even features. It was always a great medium for 'short film festival' entries. On an unrelated topic, regarding 35 compared with 16 though not part of your question, I do think ( just as an audience member), from what I've seen so far in the theatre, that 2 perf 35mm (and 'higher') is a much better look than 16 for features, but that's just my personal opinion.

Or shoot on film and do some cool in-camera double exposure optical fx with lights/cellophane/colours.