Jon O'Brien

As I've said on another thread here, I once used to attend film nights at an amateur movie club in Brisbane, and whenever on came a new film shot on Kodachrome 16mm I was just thrilled beyond compare with the vibrant, sharp image of the projected 16mm. The colours and image quality were something I never forget. I think sometimes that's something we've lost or somewhat forgotten about in the world of the moving image. We've lost track of the sheer magical effect of projected film in a darkened room. Before you even got to any content or meaning of whatever the movie was about, the sheer technical process of projected film was in itself magic. That only added to the whole package. I'm really excited by the return (soon, I hope) of Ektachrome, another great film, pretty much right up there with Kodachrome. My challenge is going to be figuring out how to modify a projector to S-16.

I'm wondering how the new Ektachrome will look scanned, compared with, say, 50D. Either way, I will have to get a 16mm projector up and running.

Here is what David Lean and Freddie Young used for Ryan's Daughter. Don't know if this is of any help but if nothing else it's interesting. Lean used Panaflex 65mm cameras all year round on the beach when shooting the film in Ireland. As you can see the camera is unprotected by even a sheet of plastic, at least when they took the publicity stills. For the storm sequence they put the camera inside a big barrel like container, probably designed for the production. It even had a maritime spinning centrifugal disk at the front to throw off the sea spray. Hope this helps. https://cinephiliabeyond.org/ryans-daughter-the-proof-of-david-leans-versatility/

"What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done ..."

But there are exceptions. I can't think of any examples in cinematography but in other creative areas there are some high achievers who couldn't abide the work of other famous artists in their field. Still, in the learning stages it helps to check out the acknowledged masters. Depends on the talent and the opportunity.

It's a cold winter here in Queensland. A two jumpers and a coat winter.

Okay, not cinematography, but advice from my professor at uni in the arts industry: rule 1, never ever be late. rule 2, you are always replaceable. And someone else said "there will always be someone better and worse than you for the job." So maintain very high standards in basic reliability, never have tickets on yourself, and you should get noticed (and remembered). Directing is extremely high stress at times so if you can make life easier for the director that should help your 'luck'.

Even back in the 'good old days' film was a slightly imperfect medium. I can remember some new prints of major films had occasional defects on them even back in the early 80's when the film workflow was at its peak. Part of the charm and at least it informs the audience what medium they're watching.

I think it might be okay, but don't quote me, and I'm no expert with scanning (yet). Keep us posted to see how you get on with the scans.

Yes, I'd think it very unlikely to happen in camera so I'd say you are right.

Looks a bit like the film has been pulled tight on the spool, eg. cinch marks.

Probably insured for 12 million pounds for all I know.

Actually, my earlier comment was more clever than I thought. In musical terms, digital to me really is more like clarinet tone. Grainless, crystalline, steady as a rock. Violin is edgier, vibrant, has grain and texture. Possibly riskier. Both are great.

I respect your experience, Robin. I've always been clear I'm an amateur. I wonder if anyone even reads these long threads, other than participants.

Shrug. There's not much point going on with this topic. I give up on it - it's like talking a philosophical point with an accountant or an engineer, or someone who just wants to crack open the next beer and fall asleep on the couch. Fair enough.

Good heavens. Maybe you don't like classical music, Robin, with your hint at class divisions. Anyway, I do. So would you suggest that Mozart must always be played on clarinet? Why not violin, too? It's you who are tilting at windmills, and being influenced by dark rabbit holes. Go sit out in the sunshine a little while, and look at some flowers.

I felt that too, when I went to see 2001: A Space Odyssey in 70mm recently. There were some flaws such as a bit of picture wobble, but a wonderful sense of presence. It was very satisfying to go and see that shown in film. I left in a slight state of wonder, trying to figure out the charm of it. It was like when Kenneth Clark in his Civilization series, episode 1, visits Iona in Scotland and can't articulate what is special about it. He simply asks the viewer, "What is it? Is it the light?" All an artist can do is ponder ... and be thankful.

I've had my first demerit point on cinematography.com. I've made it to the big time. Get used to the fact that people think differently to you. If you can't handle that you are really weak. Difference is life. It's good.

Well, I see that as one of the real benefits of digital. We can use digital for hours, and it's relatively low cost to use. Use it for nearly everything. Keep film for special projects that are worth the extra cost. For instance, let's say I make lots of music videos. I can use digital for that. Then maybe I decide to make a short 12 minute fictional narrative to enter into a film festival. I might use 16mm for that and scan it and edit it digitally. Discerning audiences really appreciate film.

I think that nails it. Digital cinematography is literal. Film creates a world that is different to the literal. It takes us away from the usual - we see the world anew, like in a kind of dreamtime. It is like impressionist art, even without standing too close to the screen. Digital just 'is'. It's what is. Now that's deep. Remember, I'm articulating my view - you may see it differently. I'm trying to explain why real film is important to those who care about it. When I go to the cinema I don't want to see what I see from a newscameraman's digital camera. That's the world of reality. For fictional movies, I want film, or I want a film look at least. But I do like the fact that celluloid is holdable, and has an odour, and is imperfect, as Spielberg says. If you deny all this ..... there's something not quite right. If you can't see the appeal or value of real film then you lack some type of important insight as a visual artist, which is what you should be if you are creative makers of image. I can see the value of digital. I can see it's weaknesses. In a nutshell, it's not imperfect enough. That plus living light can't shine through it.

Digital is a great tool but it's ephemeral in the end. Film is like a painting. It's real.

Rotator cuff injuries are very common, when handling even light objects with arm extended and hand in a high position like at shoulder level or above. Humans are actually pretty fragile, but men often don't like to admit it. If you want to have a long working life, slow down and be careful and know how to lift things and do physical tasks. Anyone who tells you otherwise ignore them - they don't care it's not their life.

Being soundly educated in the classics has always been a road to success in the arts. Of course there's no guarantee because the other requirements are talent and lots of hard work, and basically, sticking with it and not giving up. There's another thing though: being obsessed with other's achievements, and being an expert on what has been produced by others, but not really getting out there and doing your own things. A famous classical musician once said something along the lines of "If you're at the top of the game you don't have time to sit down and listen to the other soloists." But people do. We need inspiration and technical and artistic knowledge. So seek a good balance. Get educated, stay educated, but get out there and do your own thing as quick as you can, and keep doing it. Don't watch too many films - make your own. But you have to know your art. Wisdom and hard work ..... Yes, you must watch Citizen Kane. It's a classic.

Saw the new 70mm print in Brisbane. Great sound (to my ear). Wonderful to see real film at a cinema again. They even had the traditional curtain. Brilliant. Was slightly shocked at first at flicker, most noticable on the very bright white (eg. of white floor on space station). Bit of gate weave and wobble too. But a real sense of 'presence' and artistically a richer experience than many digital shows I've seen recently. Film has a more incised or more 'etched' effect on the screen than digital. Yeah, I know it's a print that's had many generations. But still. Film to me is great. I love it. Hope to see more films projected on film in cinemas in the years ahead. That said, I do respect what's happening in digital projection too. Very clear, rock steady, very sharp. The projector lens for 2001 had a strange blurry patch in it, bottom rh corner of the screen, plus a very slight vignette effect in top rh corner of screen that detracted slightly from the experience. But it was truly great to see real film again. Congratulations to all involved for bringing this back to cinemas.

Hi Raissa, thank you for your friendly words.