Jon O'Brien

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.

Yeah, I thought of that, but God has full rights to it.

Rather interesting phenomenon that Hydrogen swirling around in the early cosmos eventually organised into DNA. And here we all are, making movies.

Badlands was an artistic creation but a film that took a grim view of life. A study in the banality of evil. The girl was truly evil too because she passively went along with it. Perhaps that is this film's power, its depiction of people who've lost humanity. It's raw depiction of gun violence was probably pretty ground breaking too. Without the use of squibs it wouldn't have had as much of an impact. Unfortunately the depiction of violence was a feature that gave the movie some of its raw power. In my opinion. It's not really a film I'd want to see again. There just doesn't seem to be any redemption in it at all, it's a depiction of hopelessness far worse than James Dean's most negative and narcissistic performances.

I'm looking forward to hearing how you go with it. In further developments, my old cinema friend a few doors up the street has come good with a 16mm projector. It's an old Siemens that was used by the education dept. But no lens! Knowing Jim, he will come up with a lens as well. It will take me a while to get this thing running again as I'm not very mechanically inclined. Next project is finding out if he really can get a 35mm projector or two that are up for grabs. What I need is someone in Australia who is a genius at getting old projectors working again.

Yep, they took a year to shoot Ryan's Daughter, with Lean taking days off waiting for the right weather. The money that must have cost to have all that crew playing cards for days.

In my humble opinion 15/70 isn't really the best medium for narrative feature movie. It just seems like visual overkill, and the aspect ratio isn't right. Surely vertical 5/70 is best for feature movies, Or cinemascope 35mm. 15/70 is more for shorter 'science' documentaries and nature films and things like Cirque de Soleil in 3D. It must be difficult to make a buck out of an expensive 15/70 print for the average feature movie.

That was what David Lean was most remembered for. I heard a few people who worked with him a lot make similar comments, on a series of three documentaries on Lean. David Lean was an artist. As were Freddie Young, cinematographer ( or lighting cameraman, as I think he described himself), and Robert Bolt, writer, with whom Lean collaborated.