Jon O'Brien

Dom, okay, it's a bit of a promotional video, I think we can all see that. I threw the video in there to generate ideas as videos seem to do, whether good or indifferent. People here have been discussing laser projection and I'm interested to read the latest reports, from those to whom cinema is dear to their hearts, of how it looks with content shot on film, not having ever seen it myself. Eyewitness reporting from people of good taste is hard to beat. I understand from your posts you're more interested in experimental, arty films? You must have really been interested in film as you were into anamorphic 8mm. What is the future of celluloid for new movie production? I'm interested in your opinion and in the opinions of other Australian film people like Bruce McNaughton, who occasionally pops up here on cinematography.com.

Just found this. Cinemas are probably going to have to be fitted out with this first if they're to survive. And that's a good thing as nothing quite motivates as the prospect of going out of business. It's interesting the video says things like "you see what you see when you walk out your front door." I think for fiction movies you don't really want that. But that's a subjective point, open to personal taste. But if Dolby Vision can create a natural film look for images shot on celluloid then that will be the best of both worlds, real film look with the advantages of digital. https://www.news.com.au/technology/home-entertainment/tv/dolby-vision-and-dolby-atmos-are-going-to-change-to-way-we-watch-television-forever/news-story/658851bf653b638227c4690aa99d39ac

Where are the passionate discussions regarding digital vs film projection that used to occur here in the past? Are you all working too hard now, or have you said all that can be said? Or have the Men in Black visited you and told you to tone it down? Or is it that we are all getting too long in the tooth now and who really cares about cinema projection problems anymore? On a more practical note (if someone wishes to rise from the grave to comment), how does home digital projection of film originated movies look - is the contrast better. Cinematography.com has gotten rather quiet lately - like the surface of a fish pond in the corner of someone's quiet backyard.

Anyone know of any 35mm projectors available in Australia for a few hundred bucks?

That looks like a rig that could lead to some uber cool filmmaking fun.

One thing, though, about 1.3x anamorphic S16 is that it comes out naturally at close to 2.39:1 but regular 16mm 2x comes out wider, so if you want a cinemascope ratio you have to crop the sides or have overspill on the sides of the screen when projecting. No wonder most people just crop S16 letterbox style if they want it wider since real estate is lost either way. Just like music, filmmaking is an exercise in solving puzzles. No wonder most people shoot on digital.

On the productions decades ago the lights were so bright from the slow film speeds I've read the actors sometimes developed eye problems. With today's improved ability to use natural light it's a different situation for sure.

Thanks Will.

In 'Eraserhead' a cooked chicken is impressive for being "as big as your fist!" Yes, all hail digital cinema projection the wonder of our age. To count one's blessings, maybe the way to see it is that it economically saved the movie business. I will continue to seek out real film showings.

In the last few years of cinema going I've only seen mediocre projection. 35mm prints were sometimes slightly fuzzy (70mm took care of that) but they weren't thin and lackluster, they were rich and cool looking. More arty, and that's a good thing - even if it's not an arty film. Only 250 prints per big release movie would see enough real film projected in a lot of countries (eg. by quota) to lift the credibility of cinema which is currently looking like its being subsumed into the tv world, and losing its 'big' identity and mojo. There could be a quota per country where there's enough demand. Or really fix up digital projection - it doesn't matter either way. It needs to look richer and fatter. The sound is fine. I'm aware of the technical terms but I chose to use these words.

Art direction and effects were great in this film! And great sound effects, too. Neil and his wife were perfect in their dress and manner. Very, very believable picture and very entertaining. The Neil Armstrong in this film came across like I remember older people back then: old-fashioned, a bit reticent and quiet in some ways, hard working, sincere, honest. Today we might say naive but they weren't. I miss that whole era. I was just old enough to remember the grainy, ghost-like image of Armstrong climbing down the ladder as one of my earliest memories. My dad explained carefully what was happening, so I understood. The people of those days were great in my opinion. That whole generation is basically gone now. They weren't perfect, but they had so much going for them. Not a criticism, just an amusing thing at one point (I thought): one of the televisions they showed in someone's home looked very much a 70s style. I can only just remember the old, mid-60s style tvs (still in use in early 70s) and they were an entirely different look.

I can imagine a short film, about a wedding photographer starting out, who bungles the drone and it goes haywire. Probably been done before. Something along the lines of The Loaded Dog, by Henry Lawson (Australians will know what I'm on about. Possibly NewZealanders too). Thanks for the tips. The 16mm idea occurred to me of course - a limited market though but I'd definitely give it a shot. Might get someone in Uzbekistan to help out with the editing. Get a Krasnogorsk and go the real McCoy. Actually there are a few reasons why I got the wedding (and other things) videography idea: Done wedding gigs, as a musician, so I've been there done that as a job (rubbed shoulders with photographers and seen what they do and how stressful their job looks [doesn't seem too bad], but no videographers with drones so far); filmed my first wedding on Super 8 the other day and it was a success; I'm planning on getting a whizz bang editing/grading computer so it makes sense to get into digital cameras as well as film; and finally, went to a country show and there was an old guy there, looked a bit like Colonel Sanders (of chicken fame), with digital camera on fluid head tripod, must have been more than 20 years older than me, and he does casual/contract work for the local tv station, filming events. I neglected to find out exactly what he was shooting on but it looked like a conventional digital camera, not a DSLR. I thought, well if he can do it (looked pretty easy, what he was doing), then why can't I give it a go.

What camera do freelance wedding videographers use, and people starting out who seek to eke out a buck or two from whatever means they might do so on a freelance basis, or is that a subject as wide and as deep as the Atlantic? Can you use anything you like, or are there some general trends? Where does one even start? As a background, I'm a total film person and an amateur who wants to do something more. I've only ever used 8 and 16mm. I've just gone through a big change in life and am looking for other things to do. I will stick with 16mm but want to get into digital too. Or is it all a waste of money, trying to make money with a camera unless you're in New York, Tokyo, Melbourne, London or Sydney?

Digital cameras are great and necessary technology but a musical comparison to film is they're a bit like listening to a keyboard synthesizer playing Bach's solo sonatas and partitas on violin. Very impressive but just not the same and missing that earthiness and at the same time some spirit too that mysteriously seems to inhabit that simple wooden box. Same thing with a film compartment, where that little flickering image resides when the motor runs. Film cameras speak when they film, as if saying, okay I'm now doing my thing, pay attention as this all costs money.

I've read a few times that the best, latest cinema laser projection of movies shot on film looks basically indistinguishable from a projected film print. Is this so? That's great if it is. Also, hopefully the occasional 70mm print will save the reputation of 'big movies' as a cinema going experience.

An interesting thing though that laser projection still too expensive for most businesses (I've never seen it, as far as I know). More than five years (more like eight years) the new tech has been in place in cinemas and still not a match for what we had, at least in the opinion of some pretty big voices in show biz, like Nolan. I write this in concern for cinema. If TV continues to look better than cinema it's a sure thing that the cinema will fade away more. I don't know .... maybe I just need to find a better cinema than the local one. It really does look pretty poor.

Is film projection of new releases happening hardly at all now (effectively not at all) because it's the status-quo decreed from on high by the industry big guns/bosses who want to corner the market/technology? Or does it come down to simple economics, eg. some limited distribution by film print of new releases just isn't economic? I hear rumours that many projectors still exist and didn't end up in landfill. Maybe the truth is that no one really knows the answer. My question is a sincere one and I'd really like to know. Film at the cinema is a good experience and frankly people need to see it more.

Thanks, I knew that tape measurements were always done and of the necessity of focus pullers, but I should have phrased the question whether anyone shoots on film cameras without any form of digital aid to focus these days, which must have been the way they did it once.

Thanks Phil, that's encouraging. I will only note though that it was the look of the whole movie including external day scenes.

I don't know if it's the quality of projector used at my local cinemas or whether they've got the latest equipment, but in my opinion digital projection is letting down the makers of these movies shot on film. It's a cheaper, thinner and slightly dull, washed out look that gives all the information but in a slightly lackluster way. I find that I often become conscious of the actual white screen itself. Projection of film prints has a warmer, 'fatter', higher quality look. Movies shot on film actually look much better on the home tv screen. Film projection can have problems too of course, flicker sometimes, vertical scratches, etc, but overall a better way of seeing films that were shot on film. I wonder if people in the film industry are concerned about this, and whether the digital projection can be improved.

Well, you've got me interested in this anamorphic projection again, Mark. I'd be interested to see how you did it, if it's not too much trouble for you. I didn't realize the lens attachment could have a largish gap between it and the projector lens, as long as all the image passes into the rear element. That is probably doable.

Great film. Just saw it. This film definitely did not commit the mistake I referred to earlier, above. I didn't mind the 'truthful cinema' camera style and the sometimes out of focus shots. Seemed to fit well in the context wherever it was apparent. I really admired the look of the outdoors 'home movies' style shots, when Neil Armstrong was on the moon and he was thinking back over happy family times. That was very saturated, warm colourful, almost like Kodachrome - I'd be interested to know if it was 2 perf. Wasn't as grainy as the super 16 shots (probably because they were shooting on 500T). Comparing this film as a cinema experience to the previous one I went to see, 2001: A Space Odyssey, I feel the latter definitely (to my taste) had a warmer and better look. It would be great if current films could in some cases be released as film prints. I'd definitely pay more for it, but don't know if anyone else would.

Great camera!

Is anyone shooting for big feature films these days (on film) and doing all the focus via the optical viewfinder and groundglass? Not saying that's a mistake proof option by any means, especially in lower light.

The majority of 16mm projectors have the lens set very far back and set in close to the side of the projector, so putting the Panasonic adapter into that space seems unworkable. Fair enough, back to concentrating on scanning real film and working with it on computer. Projection seems too much of a distraction from the main thing.