Jon O'Brien

I did notice an almost comical stopping of the tractor and the driver suddenly gesticulating (or looking for his banana/water bottle) rapidly out of the back of it. A bit like the sped-up robot on Lost in Space original series, but that's pushing the comparison.

Cool and artistic footage. Like a fine wine.

Reversal film, I gather, doesn't necessarily scan 'so well' ("well" being perhaps a philosophical concept and open to personal taste) as, say, Vision3 negative film? I feel like walking on eggshells a bit here, not wanting to appear, er, negative, but one thing I've noticed, looking at a lot of digitised footage on the internet is that, even allowing for compression/downgrading to MP4 or whatever (I'm still a bit computer challenged just a bit when it comes to video, but improving), the quality of scanning from various 'places' seems to vary to a very large degree. I've seen some scanned Super 8 Vision3 on youtube that looks unbelievably stunning, and is the 'look' I'm after. I wonder if scanned Ektachrome can look as good.

Thank you Manu, that's great to read that. Joe certainly did a wonderful job on this movie. I think what I was alluding to earlier was an issue related to projection, but this perhaps isn't the place to discuss it. What I observed in the theatre seeing this fine movie fits precisely with what Joe states - that "film seems to like having a little bit softer contrast."

Another thing I didn't sufficiently make clear, so here it is. The Old Man and the Gun is a great-looking movie, so go and see it or view it on your TV/device at the earliest opportunity. Not only looks great but it's a good movie with lovely performances from Robert Redford, Sissy Spacek and the others. Great cinematography. The Super 16 looked really nice.

I can't! I could cheat though, and Google it.

Yep, fair enough Robin. Was badly put by me.

Thanks Gregg, I agree. I will be more careful with my wording in future. Had a tough week, though that's no excuse.

Well I think that is sad that you have docked me two points.

My post was a discussion about a technical question related to a reasonably newish trend of shooting feature films on S16 and where they are projected digitally in a cinema. I notice a problem with this process, but my motivation is curiosity about the technical process of why images appear in the cinema the way they do. I apologise if I didn't make that clear and if my wording wasn't the best use of the english language - I'm only human. I was making a query about a process - film photography combined with contemporary cinema digital projection. There was no implied or direct criticism of a professional or group of professionals but if my wording didn't make that clear then, again, I apologise.

No Gregg, I will post as I see fit. There was a problem and it needs to be said. I paid for my ticket.

I've just seen it recently in a cinema. I thought the S16 looked great in terms of definition and the visible grain was fine. I hope more feature movies are shot on this format. However, something wasn't quite right at the cinema where I saw it. Mostly it was fine but sometimes it definitely wasn't. The interior shots all looked good but strangely the exterior day scenes especially in full sunlight in outdoor country/rural scenes or scenes involving trees and grass etc, didn't look right. A strangely dark look almost like underexposed. Just looked dim. And faces in the same scenes were really dark - you could hardly see eyes clearly. Shadows were too dark and basically visual information was cancelled in a lot of shadowing. Yet before the film came on, in the ads and previews shot on digital the image looked great, very colourful and bright, but when the feature itself started, shot on film, big difference! The image looked noticeably dimmer, with the shadow problem. I was not imagining it, it was a definite problem. I feel the cinematographer really needed to get some additional light into those faces, at the very least. I don't know whether this is a specific issue with shooting on film and projecting digital but it seemed to me like it was. Towards the end of the movie this overly-dark shadowing seemed to be resolved, with a deliberate use of less contrast in the lighting and even costumes, so maybe the filmmakers realised through rushes that there was a problem if these scenes were indeed shot last. Then again could just be an issue with the projector in the cinema I saw it at. But I suspect not.

Went to see the Victoria 8, kept in a tiny shed along a long and narrow track in the wooded hills, by a delightful older gentleman who lives in a small cottage with a lovely dog called Archie. A good subject for a film! Man, that machine is enormous. Runs on 3 phase power, has a rectifier the size of a very large amplifier, needs to be converted to regular electricity, and to a simpler light source. I think it is just too big and heavy. Suddenly the 'weaknesses' of digital projection appear to me as being, er, 'not a problem at all'.

This is just the ticket. As Darth Vader might say, "Impressive ...." Has anyone seen it demonstrated? Wonder what it looks like projecting a fine rendering of Lawrence of Arabia or Ryan's Daughter or similar.

I've had some interesting experiences this year. Boozed up person next to me with huge shopping bag full of liquor bottles on my seat. Had to ask her to please put them on the floor (only seat left). A group of young people intermittently looking at phones (just the glow, not the sound). Ad comes on from government saying males generally have a problem harassing women. Yeah right great thanks for that!

Nice!

That revolution occurred right here, in Australia.

Funny to think Georgie baby both revamped the cinema and then initiated the single biggest revolution that ever occurred to it. He made waves that's for sure. I sort of wish he'd stayed with Techniscope (American Graffiti) and scope. https://pmcvariety.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/george-lucas-star-wars.jpg?w=670&h=377&crop=1 Wonder if he does now, too.

Nice chunky beasts they are, too. Should last almost forever.

Even the greatest of the ancient cave paintings, of bison and so on, are great images. Have we gotten too far away from daubing ochre on with our fingers? Of feeling that bumpy, scratchy cave wall? And the roar of the greasepaint; the smell of the crowds. I can't help but feel that too much digital is just too .... suburban.

Film as painting is how I see it. Photochemical film gives a (subtle, but sometimes very marked) painted quality/effect that can really enhance the story making in a visual way. If you can, take a look at a scene in 'Far from the Madding Crowd' (2015), when the the husband is asking the wife for money (interior shot, natural light, about an hour or more into the film). Watch the whole scene. The image looks like an oil painting. Yes, it's the lighting and art design, but it has been beautifully rendered on film and is remarkable and wouldn't be nearly so painting-like with digital because digital has a subtle superficial, plastic look and has problems with contrast and colour. The whole movie benefits from having been shot on film. 'Common', average non-arty people do care about such things. When Rembrandt's works are shown in touring exhibitions they draw large crowds. I've heard them standing there, saying ooh, aah, look at the use of colour, light and texture. A lot of people can't even articulate these things but they still care. People will always care about quality of image in movies, painting and photography - that will never fade for as long as civilisation exists. I don't think that only period pictures are enhanced by film. I think all movies are. But the projection isn't possible anymore, except in rare situations, so thus the need to provide a digital solution for seeing film at its best. I'm sure it can be done.

I certainly agree with you Dom on the fundamentals. If I came across as cynical regarding journalism - I'm not, and I know for a fact that good journalists exist and they play an extremely important role in democracy. But there's the word. Democracy. Here's how I see the current political landscape. Democracy is not a perfect system but the best we've found so far for liberty. There will naturally (if liberty exists) be two main sides (and they will both still exist even if one is not legally allowed - only thing that will happen is one will go covert) and we will never all agree so the middle course that runs somewhat haphazardly at times between the opposing views keeps our society's boat afloat. That push and pull assures a certain vigour and lack of stagnation to society. How boring if there were no opposing view - what would we struggle against? So both sides should practice tolerance and stay cool-headed (which generally we do). It's the only way that leads to lasting peace and lack of political oppression, but if one or both sides become self-righteous and literally demonizes the other (and dehumanizes them - always the classic first step toward evil) then we have sailed into intolerant times. For instance I don't agree with the political forces that openly express their frustration with democracy, vilifying and insulting 'the other side', and seem to yearn for an imposed, legalistic uniformity of thought. I mean, yuck/shiver. This happens occasionally on the extremes of both sides. I've seen it. But I have hope and faith in western society and democracy. Evil people don't last forever - like Stalin. His own people close to him eventually so feared him no one came to his side to help him in his last sickness, and he died alone. Same with Hitler. We shouldn't fear evil and we shouldn't worry because fear and worry wear us down and make us weak. Nor should we be too divided, as a house divided against itself cannot stand (Jesus' words). I believe there is an old saying that if you sit peacefully by the side of the river long enough, you will see the body of your enemy floating by. Truth always wins in the end, but boy a lot of harm can occur before that happens. But, yes, not the forum for this, so on this topic I've said all I'm going to say.

Modern western man doesn't believe in the Devil anymore, so he has to invent evil human personalities whose main sin is that they are not playing for one's team. The 2 minute hate and all that, predicted by Orwell. It all came true, even the screen that can watch you. Actually that was evil's greatest triumph, to get modern 'civilised' man to believe there's no such thing as a source for evil that is outside of us, that is a spirit. But this leads us to religion. Please, back to cinema.

Thanks for the great advice. Have located a 35mm Victoria 8 close to home, and possibly smaller models if this proves too big or otherwise unsuitable. Will go and investigate.

Murdoch is far from perfect but he's not the very Devil. As if the other press is as pure as the driven snow. Hah! He's just a guy who makes money ... read it all with a pinch of salt, on all sides. You will be a happier man. We're being played, so everyone calm down about journalism and politics. Hollywood especially (and I didn't bring up this topic).