Jon O'Brien

15/65 is surely impossibly expensive for a full length feature movie, and there are too few cinemas. I don't know of any real film IMAX theatres in my country. Anyway, do what you want.

Well, that's the point I was making earlier. Shoot the whole film on a normal format, like 35mm or 65mm. Why on earth shoot a picture like that, a narrative thing, on IMAX? IMAX is really for nature type films and other visual feasts. Where are you David Lean? Come back and back me up. Yes, don't worry, I know that in his day 65mm was as big as he could get. But really, this contemporary thing for incredible resolution is self-defeating in my opinion. The old slightly fuzzy look of a lot of the old 70's/80's 35mm anamorphic prints at the cinema actually worked in favour of narrative story. It helped create the world of make believe. If you've got good actors, story, sets and locations but above all good story and directing you don't need incredible definition. 65mm is always more than good enough for any movie, any subject.

I still like to go and see movies at the cinema. I don't go and see any of the garbage sorts of films full of CGI and no plot or interesting character and story. Seen all the recent Star Wars movie, and recently went to see 'Darkest Hour' which was great. It is actually good for you to get out. The last time I went to the movies a few weeks back it was full and I sat next to a woman who wanted 2 chairs to herself, ponged of ethanol, and when I pointed out I needed the chair next to her, she very grudgingly hefted an enormous bag full of (presumably grog) bottles off the chair, and then whinged to me that I'd interrupted her enjoyment of the start of the movie, and also sighed loudly every time she wanted to spread out in her chair, so to speak, and kept bumping into my leg .... but aside from all that I enjoyed the movie. I've lately discovered a place that shows 16mm and 35mm prints and although it's a bit of a drive I might start going there whenever I can. I still consider it a bonus if a good film is shot on film. It means a lot to me. Even better if projected on film. A film has to have soul to be entertaining. Darkest Hour has that. It's an honest film. The worst films don't have soul because the director/scriptwriter don't really 'get' what life is about ... what people are. Life is about struggle and frailty and toughness and fortitude and love. If you've got that, and you do it with sincerity, you've got a picture that's going to at least pay for itself.

Your home theater system sounds great, Volker! Any chance you could write up an article/longer post on how to go about setting it up/modifying the projector? I'm really interested. Now to get Kodak to actually bring back Ektachrome on 16mm.

Creepy video. Pushing an agenda it won't come out and state plainly and openly. What exactly is it saying? Hope? No, that's not what it's pushing. It's pushing change that is going to hurt. Me too is just the beginning. Ah, I see, so the hypocrisy is only to be ramped up even more? What is needed is true hope, not fake social-media type 'hope' that only wants change at any cost.

Kansas was better. It was real and good value. It was real estate. This pixelated rabbit hole full of queens and cats is too .... um, I guess you'd have to say digitised if you know what I mean .... (this is Jon writing this, who is a man).

Will ye no come back again, film in Oz?

How about a new line of girl cameras called PINK. No wait, that's not cis-gender ... or is it. Not? Umm .....

I don't really understand. Why didn't Nolan just shoot the whole film 5/65, the old 'SuperPanavision' that Lean sometimes used. Why mix and match bits of this and bits of that?

I'm sure you could make something very creative and artistic with 360 degree camera work, but I think it wouldn't really be cinema any more. At least, not to me. I like the rectangular frame of the cinematic presentation - it's like a frame around a painting, and how things are arranged with that frame interest me. 360/globe sort of photography is sort of unlimited. Most art when you think of it is highly limited in some way, and that's a good thing because it makes it easier to enjoy and appreciate. It also creates a "4th wall" which is a tradition of theater. Okay, so it doesn't have to be art, it can just be sheer entertainment, but you know what I mean. At a recent 'State Fair' here (called "the Ekka" here) I was walking past a stall, and a young lady called out to me, "Hey you, sir, come over here and put these on". I walked over and put some big, black goggles on (I think i've told this story before, but oh well). I found myself instantly immersed in a 3D, 360 world of mice sailors all sweeping the deck of a wooden ship. I was standing on the deck, with them. But really, I quickly found it all very tiresome. I looked up, I looked down, I looked all around. Finally, I spun around 180 degrees and faced the other way, and found myself looking out at a vast, and rather entrancingly peaceful expanse. I gazed at it for some time, and finally the young saleswoman asked me what I was looking at. "The sea," I replied. "It looks so peaceful and inviting". That, for me, was the best bit. Not the dancing 3D mice sailors, which didn't interest me in the least.

Good point. Very true. But a bit overwhelming for many. I'd think it best to start with Super 8, get to understand setting up a scene, eyeline/continuity and all that, how to tell a story, telephoto/wide shots, framing, panning speed, etc, tripod use and hand held: the complete and utter basics, without having to worry about all the other 'manual' things. Then move onto 16mm and learn the nuts and bolts of exposure, prime lens selection, ISO and f stop etc etc. And maybe dream of even one day moving up from there .... But Super 8: ahh, it was so great! Brings back great memories. Just point and shoot, really. You can actually direct a picture and shoot the thing as well.

That is, until Ektachrome comes back. Good onya Kodak!!

The best type of ugly is the one that is nevertheless somehow beautiful - because of the so called imperfection. That's sort of the mystery of good art in there somewhere.

So, in a way, cine as an art form has shot itself in the foot.

Yes, it's a hobbyist thing, but as we all know all professionals started out as hobbyists. If you do have plans (or hopes) of some day doing something that might get shown in theaters and you want to shoot film, you really need to begin with hobbyist reversal shooting. You need to start somewhere. It's too expensive to start out with negatives and prints.

Apologies if this has been posted here before. Hmm, I wonder if Ektachrome might be the answer to what I'm looking for. https://nofilmschool.com/2017/01/kodak-ektachrome-35mm Was Kodachrome better?

What is the main difference in look between Kodachrome and Ektachrome during normal daylight shooting, for home movie type photography? Is Ektachrome grainier? I seem to recall it renders colour slightly differently.

Very nice film footage. Haven't looked at the short yet.

Does anyone foresee a time when cinema glass will become more affordable to rent for 'no budget' filmmakers (eg. the director funds the whole thing from his own wallet)? With so many new lenses being made, and potential future camera designs changing to smaller size? Or is this just a pipe dream? (sound of scottish pipes humming in the distance. that type of pipe. just to be different you know).

All of that expensive gear needed to shoot a feature, commercial or whatever. Yet cameras/lenses etc getting so small and affordable such that a tiny phone is now a potentially a rival (and likely to become more so in the future as the lens options etc improve). Very nice photos David Mullen. Nice texture too, like film. But what about rock steady stabilization - an iPhone on an Arri geared head and massive tripod? that would look interesting.

I sometimes backwound Super 8, in the 80s. I did one shot of someone firing a 'laser' pistol. The beam was a slit in a piece of black cardboard with red cellophane and back lit. It was a success, but was a very brief shot. I seem to recall I got the idea from Cinemagic magazine. I put tape over the cartridge's take up wheel. Not long after, I changed to regular 8mm, then on to 16mm.

Kodak should just bring it back and call it something else.

Yeah I agree. I probably won't be buying any more film stock until I've figured out how I can buy reversal and get it processed, and get this old 16mm projector someone gave me up and running. Bring back Kodachrome! There's been a lot of lies told over environment. It wears thin and people develop a 'care factor zero'.

"If I had the $$ I would have bought your IIc 2 perf" Me too. All the best.

I saw 'The Last Jedi' again today, my second time. I liked it much better this time. It has grown on me. Well done Rian Johnson, crew and actors.