Jon O'Brien

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.

I don't know if my comment is relevant but in comedy looking into the lens is sometimes used freely, eg. breaking the fourth wall because suddenly the actor/s acknowledges the audience as if to say, "Yes, we all know you're there!". An obvious and extreme example is the skipper in Gilligan's Island, who often did it whenever he became the most exasperated and needed to lean on the audience for moral support. And Groucho Marx, for his 'knowing' punchlines complete with upraised eyebrows and shaking the ash of his cigar. Nudge nudge wink wink ... Say No More!! And so on. etc. Anyway, thought I'd throw that in. Also, is this not an Australian film? Australians are renowned for a certain irreverance and like to push traditions a bit. Am I allowed to say that? Well anyway I just did so there.

Thanks Tyler, if I could give you guys double points I would.

Yes that would definitely be the way to go about it. You'd have to see the results in a real cinema.

That is comprehensive information and very helpful indeed. Thank you Landon, much appreciated! Is it possible to teach yourself how to color grade or is attending a course the best way to go? I'd rather just learn on the job and put my money into equipment, but whatever works best.

Apparently the interior of the command and lunar module were shot in Super 16mm according to IMDb. They also used 3 perf as well as the techniscope, and IMAX film cameras. This seems to be a growing trend for big features to shoot on film.

Ah-ha! Thanks Mark for clarifying that. I wasn't sure if that would work well enough, never having had anything to do with anamorphic, though the idea did occur to me. Not being the greatest of optics I'm wondering if the results would be disappointing, effectively going through the glass twice. But I'm getting really interested now in this Panasonic adapter.

Thanks Bob and David! Would these set ups render a result that could be handed over to a professional posthouse for putting it all onto a DCP? Or can even this be done effectively 'from home' now? Thanks Bob for your comment that you're not a professional and so that makes two of us. I have some ambitions in this direction but don't know yet whether this ambition will bear much fruit. I'm involved in other creative areas and film so far is a sideline thing for me but am thinking of what I could do with it.

No 1.3x projection lenses seem to exist. Okay, well the 1.3x lens attachment is still interesting, for scanned Vision 3.

Does anyone know anything about projecting anamorphic 1.33x S16? There's a place in my heart for such a project ...

Thanks Matt, that is a huge help! Looks great. Yep, no doubt a funky lens set up but perfect in some ways for 'arty' projects. And fun too I would think. But for professional filmmaking sure the Hawks would be the way to go but I won't be going that way most likely. Too difficult as no one has the lenses here, as Dom said. I will just stay with cropped S16 or 2 perf.

Could someone spell out for me, in just a few lines, what would be a great computer set up to buy that would have the most power and fewest hassles for home editing and colouring digital footage to a completely professional and efficient standard. How much gb of video memory, etc? I'd be using it for film scanned up to 4K. I've done a lot of reading and searching online about what to get but still haven't tracked down a simple up-to-date answer, so believe me I've put in the hard yards (maybe I'm not much good at researching such topics, or don't understand what I'm reading). I did read recently that post-production is moving over to PC, from Mac, so I think PC might be the way to go (and sure, not a notebook). I intend to use Davinci Resolve. Any help most appreciated. Thank you.

Yep, you can pull out the cartridge. At worst, if it hasn't reached the end of the 50ft, you will just fog a few frames.

I might be misinterpreting what you're saying, but the only advice I can give is that the film in the cartridge 'window' should have "Exposed" (or something similar) printed in white lettering on it when the whole 50ft cartridge has come to the end. The camera should stop at that point too. Possibly the camera has a slipping clutch but really I don't know.