Jon O'Brien

Thanks Dom, very helpful. I've read Nanolab's very informative page about using handheld metering too. I will have to do what he suggests, and do an exposure test. As a very approximate guide, though, it looks like the Bolex reflex 5 model needs to have the lens opened up about 1/3 of a stop to compensate for the viewfinder light loss, and opened about 1/3 of a stop more to compensate for the fact that the light meter (for instance a Sekonic L398A) is calibrated for a 180 degree shutter, whereas the Bolex has a 133 degree shutter and is thus not letting in the same amount of light. Have I got that right?

I have an Arri 2C on flat base. The motor is the usual pistol grip Arri 2C one, mounted upside down on the base. It has a fairly ancient and tarnished looking PV electrical connection at the base of the motor. The leads are ancient and not in the best of shape. When I get the lens mount changed to PL I'm thinking of also getting the electrical connections changed to some other more convenient system, maybe XLR - whatever's best. Can anyone advise what it typically might cost to get the motor battery plug/connection modified? Also, typically, now much does a camera that probably hasn't been used for three decades usually need spent on it in terms of greasing and maintenance to bring it up to ready-to-film level, assuming all parts are fine and working? The camera seems in good condition. It has all the bits necessary and just needs lenses (to be hired), film mags and battery connection. I'm not very mechanically minded myself and would prefer an expert to work on it.

Actually I liked VHS. It was so fuzzy and 'grainy' or static-y and also the colour was well saturated (it was if you beefed up the colour on the tv) it looked arty a lot of the time. Mind you, in the VHS years I wasn't into filmmaking so much. But it was so like that that you couldn't really see what the digital photography process was truly like. Again, though, VHS wasn't a patch on film.

I have to remember to be scrupulously polite while attending an art show with friends who also have definite opinions. I've seen paintings I wouldn't spit on if they were on fire. Chook house liner. ("Chook" is Australian for chicken, as in chickens in the coop)

A photochemical finish would sure throw a spanner in the works of digital piracy, would it not? According to an industry insider who has spilled the beans on Hollywood, it is starting to have a definite effect on revenue from films. And ticket sales in the US is on a prolonged downward line for many years now despite more screens and larger population. What's going on?

Also, David, I agree with you. Yes, it's terrible to write an artist off because he or she paints in oils or in acrylic. That's a form of snobbery. But in the world of painters, it's an issue that doesn't arise. We can truly say that we love all types of great paintings, whether painted in oils or acrylic. If it's great art then I don't care what it's painted in. I love acrylic and oil. I've got artists in the family and they paint in both and both are great. They have that choice. Start talking about film/cinema it's a different kettle of fish. To keep using that painter's way of seeing it, if it's acrylic or it's the highway, artists are going to start saying, "WE WANT OILS." Same with buyers of paintings, the ones who never take up a brush. They will end up getting what they want.

That's why artists/entertainers need a choice, in a healthy 'industry'. To impose one method on makers, in a sort of unionised push-out, is pretty boring.

That's the reality of the art/entertainment/call it what you will world. You don't like that violinist because he plays with vibrato and a lush tone? Are you going to buy tickets to that concert? Nope. Life is too short and too expensive. To you, that violinist is uninteresting. That's life. That's reality. Would I go and see a Roger Deakins film now? Probably not. If that offends your professional sensibilities you need to calm down. Don't worry - there will be plenty of fans who love what you do, if you're good.

Imagine overhearing a group walking through a public art show of paintings. They're all painting lovers but none of them paint - or maybe some of them are starting out as painters. One says "Ooh, I don't like that look - this one here is so much more artistic". The other responds, "No way, that famous artist got that such and such a look - it can't match the look of this other one". "No, the one you like looks awful." They are doing what people are supposed to do - have an opinion. Question things - sometimes question the way things are done at the top (but what is the top?). The most honest who are actually very very good say there is no top. You just do what you can do. Suddenly an actual professional painter (makes his living from selling paintings he's painted) overhears the conversation and walks up, offended. "How dare you say that! I am a professional painter!! You can't say that - you don't paint and don't know what you're talking about. You know nothing, or very little. You're being disrespectful. Only another professional painter, someone such as I, can comment (touches chest with gentle, artful gesture, eyelids lowered)". People turn around and stare. They quietly think, sheesh man, relax, it's a free world. Regarding bombastic, yes it's funny but everyone else has noticed that foible of human beings, too. See the log in your own eye. If learners can't make critical comments, for legitimate reasons, the discussion just becomes an in-house back slapping society which some professional organizations do become. Real film is great. It's epic. It's wizard, it's smashing ..... it's keen.

My final point. True cinema is theatre. The mystery of cinema is that it's a public performance medium. It's a stage show. In that respect it's different from tv. Treat cinema like tv and you will start to lose sales.

I'd even go so far as to predict that film may have a bigger 'comeback' than vinyl records. Vinyl is a home consumer medium. Film is that plus a large scale public performance medium. Big difference. To my list in the post above, of digital's shortcomings, I'd also add a 'milky', leached sort of a look that reminds me of tepid lattes. Not all films have got this but a lot do. Even Rogue One had this at times, eg the beach attack scenes, plus the 'space' star cruiser shots didn't look good. The star destroyer shot didn't have the 'presence' of the original Star Wars model photography. Would have looked so much better shot on film.

That's the word I was looking for. Digital cinema, shot and projected digitally, to many people looks soulless. It isn't just the idea of it. It's literally the look. Okay, if people like the soulless look, or don't see it as soulless, that's fine. Soulless to some extent suits certain genre and the current vibe of much of popular society. It's cool and it's in. So yeah I guess there's a market for it. But that word grasps the very definition I was looking for. Metallic, plastic, flat, glassy, cold, perfect, electric, with very often strange choice of colour. Electric particles buzzing across silicon - that's exactly what it is and that's exactly what it looks like. It can't be anything but what it really is. Film is light particles travelling through celluloid and emulsion. It can only be what it really is. One is the essence of light and dark and one is the essence of electricity and on and off. It's not unprofessional to have a preference. I reject the idea that a professional should be happy shooting either digital or film (it's fine if some professionals have this view) - that only script/project would dictate the medium. To some professional filmmakers, and to some audience, real film makes the whole project overall better regardless of script or subject. If film has survived what it's survived in the last few years it must be a very robust and much loved medium. It's come through and its future is looking better.

A slow and gentle halt in the glow of Shakespeare. A lingering shot of the sun. Fade out. A slight popping sound from the optical soundtrack.

Cinematography is bright still, though the brightest fell, Though all things cinema would wear the look of film, Yet grace must still look so - An adaptation from Shakespeare's Macbeth

Okay, not always.

Anyway, what's the big deal? Can't people just re-tool? Is that really such a difficult thing as long as there's a market?

I think a movie can be great and very entertaining if shot on digital. I just like the look of film even better. It's got to be said - many think so too.

In my opinion fatih is correct when he points out that shooting on film will help a good or great script. But that's just the opinion of some. The look of a movie has a big influence on how enjoyable the cinema going experience is. If you're watching it on tv, it's still very important there too. I can tell on tv if something is shot on film. So if this is all just opinion, what's the point of this thread? Because film lovers want to make sure film doesn't get killed by video, which nearly happened. We keep saying, and it's blatantly true, that most current cinema is projected digital tv. We've already got that at home. Yes, sure, people still want to go out.

I think fatih has made some very fair points. People seem to get troubled when a famous name is invoked but I think that's just part and parcel of the arts. Deakins himself isn't being attacked - fatih's comments are aimed at a huge overhaul of cinema. It doesn't matter that it was 10 years ago. That doesn't mean anything really. Students should be encouraged to make comments on what they like. He's saying that his mates feel the same way too - and that they know film. Some like their steak rare, others medium rare, others don't eat meat at all. Deakins is at the very top - his position is assured. It's digital vs film that is the subject here - not the abilities and talents of individuals. It's just a variation on "Oh, I think rap is boring, I prefer jazz." I agree with fatih that a film shot on film improves the entertainment value of that film because it looks better. But that's just me. Most others don't care, so they say. I'm still not convinced though. There is a resurgence of interest in film projection, and I suspect it's not going to go away any time soon. Queues going around the block? I haven't seen that since I was a kid: http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/dunkirk-70mm-screenings-of-christopher-nolans-film-at-astor-sunk-by-distributor-20170713-gxafaq.html

Now, now. We just need more film being shot so that Kodak gets bigger, not smaller.

Some here would say you throw the whole kit over one shoulder, as in throw it. Then be a videographer as opposed to cinematographer, smoking Gauloises and occasionally flicking your Isle of Harris scarf off your man bun while studiously checking the side LCD display :)

Ah, the invocation of the cappuccino, beret and arty cigarette - the last desperate refuge in arguing a point of view. What's wrong with berets, anyway. Had a cappuccino the other day it was rather good.

Worth a read, if you haven't seen it: http://www.ozmagazine.com/single-post/2017/09/22/For-the-Love-of-Film-An-Interview-with-Kodak%E2%80%99s-Michael-Brown

Something like this Robin? But maybe in 150mm. Just keen to learn more: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/232996-REG/Miller_925_ENG_Carbon_Fiber_2_Stage.html

It's funny how owning something can cause happiness. I get a glow whenever I see my Arri sitting on the shelf at home. Will I ever film with it? Sure hope so. If I do, first step is to get it down to Bruce McNaughton to get the Panavision mount changed to PL. Just got to sell an accordion first - have been trying to sell the thing for ages. Slightly obscure musical instruments must be the most difficult thing on earth to sell. I keep waiting for some Russian immigrant here to buy it as it's a Russian type.