Jon O'Brien

On a Bolex Rex 5 and SBM, and apparently only on these models, there is a simple mechanical apparatus in the region of the loop-former lever, the purpose of which I don't understand. For instance, the Rex 4 has a different design at this point. I'm pretty sure Rex 5/SBM Bolex users will know what I'm talking about. There is a sliding metal plate 2cm to the right of the loop-forming lever central button - the button you push to release the loop-formers after threading film. It has a slight lip that pokes up about 2mm, and you can push this plate left and right about 2mm. You can see it in this video, though the film loader never touches it or mentions it: At 0:19, see the little black screw head to the right of the loop-former release button? To the right of that black screw head is the tiny lip that you can push left or right. It makes a slight click sound as you push it, and is clearly designed to be pushed. But what for? I've looked at various loading videos and no one mentions it. Can anyone tell me what this sliding plate thing does, and whether I should push it to the left or to the right when loading the camera. I regret, but Bolex camera loading is, so far, not my forte. As mentioned above, the sliding plate is tightened by a black anodised screw approx. 4mm in width. The little plate bifurcates into two little prongs that seem to engage in some fashion with the loop forming mechanism. Any wisdom that anyone can impart on this mystery? As always, thank you.

And I'd be going to see a nice projected film at the movies next weekend, and not projected television that looks oddly glassy and weird, and is somewhat boring to look at.

To be fair, perhaps it mostly comes back to directors and producers: this whole business of 'look' of a picture and whether to shoot on film or digital. When you think about it, cinematographers have to know about lighting, framing, colour composition and so on of the scene, camera moves, blocking, exposure, lens type and focal length, dof, perspective, colour balance in post (if they get a say in that), and so on. Directors have to know this too but perhaps at the end of the day it is directors who seem, publicly, to be coming out and commenting on this issue of 'look' on the cinema screen the most. I've also noticed that cinematographers sometimes admit that they don't go to the cinema much anymore, where as most of my comment is from the perspective of a chair in the cinema. Yes, cinematographers clearly do have an opinion on the film and digital 'look' but I get the feeling it's not of paramount importance to many. Or that, truly, they deep down prefer the look of digital these days. Which I find interesting, but there you go.

You just keep the filter slide in the slot at all times, to avoid this light leak? Or is it best to tape over the slot openings as well even though the filter holder is in place?

Thanks Samuel for your helpful advice on the Manfrotto gear for the Bolex. My quest is still continuing; at times I tire of the search and must rest from it :P But soon enlightenment shall come.

If you want a powerful insight into humanity's frailties, go along to a common, garden-variety painted media art show one day - the type that is open to anyone who wishes to enter their work of art. Walk around; have a good look at all the paintings hanging on the walls. You will see there before you the same dilemma we are discussing here: 'Look.' Most or all of the works will be superficially very impressive technical and artistic creations. But ..... It's a matter of taste. A professional collector of art works will walk around and, if scouting for potential pieces to purchase for his or her commercial gallery, will probably not pick out any at all. It's because most people don't have a good eye for what's artistic. In a painting of a landscape, a lot of average, everyday painters and buyers will favour a 'look' that is not good art. The colour will usually be 'off' - in multiple ways. Landscapes will be rendered in a strange metallic way rather than warmly. Or there will be some other visual, conceptual flaw. This is after all the art of image ... and image alone. There will be an obvious tackiness or kitsch-ness to the work. This is a fact of the art world, but some people say it's snobbery (I'm not saying anyone is saying that here). It's not snobbery - it's just a fact that a lot of people don't have good taste in artistic imagery. Cinematographers must have this good taste however. Now, to my taste, there's something very wrong with the imagery of a total digital production, though not in some (in my experience, very rare) cases. As time goes on, perhaps digital will improve in its 'warmth and magic' (to try and find a suitable term). Even if it does, I believe filmmakers will continue to buy and use film and that will of course keep it alive. I think the industry really needs to take note of this point. There's something about the look of a total digital production that is just unappealing to a certain percentage of film fans. At what point does that affect sales? Do the top film execs even care? It goes without saying that if the top film execs don't care, then it is a bad sign, ultimately. If it's just about sales, and nothing else, you will end up with a lot of money but that's about all.

Fade in. INT. Day. Medium wide shot. Swish looking office. Film exec at desk boils over and flings poster across room, hard, like Ninja throwing a star. Picks up phone. Cut to Close up. "Get me Kodak print stock division on the line!" There is determination in his voice. He looks a man with a mission. Audience sees he has clearly reached a decision. There is a subtle bead of sweat on his brow.

Plastic, artificial, and to me the other day when I went to the cinema, an odd 'glassy' look that is truly hard to define. I'm a pretty artistic person and I got the mental image of the dead eye of a freshly-caught fish for some reason when looking into the nighttime blacks of the digital image. It's like looking into a perfect, glassy, cold fish pond to me - you know, the sort that has no happy fish swimming in it. Good heavens, how can anyone feel inspired to write good scripts for an industry that has fallen in love with that? Okay, so it does happen occasionally. Rogue One looked pretty good. Not as good as film would have looked, though.

Actually, I don't really mind if a film is digitally projected. The projection is getting better I hear - warmer and all that. Great! I'm just a fan. Would love for some film to stay projected. What I am passionate about is that cinematographers always have the ability to at least shoot on film. Film comes through so truly even through the digital process. I know Tyler doesn't agree.

Well, I don't see it as wishful thinking. Wishful thinking would be to imagine that all cinemas will go back to film projection. I mean, that's laughable, of course. I see it as down to earth, practical thinking. People want to see film projected in a night out at the flicks? That's doable. It's being done. Want more of that? It can be done. Want a new projector? Go to a place that has truly excellent manufacturing and design capability for an affordable price. That's doable. Will it happen? I don't know ... maybe ask Hollywood.

That's true, Stuart. I enjoyed Rogue One. It had a good script. I keep saying, there's room for both, and digital has won the lion's share.

You're doing the very thing you're saying I'm doing, David. I'm always surprised at how fervently digital people wish that film really is finished. Have you noticed how Hollywood is failing in quality film production? That quality will continue to erode if film is pushed totally out. Some very 'big' and powerful people are saying it. Are they all wrong? I'm really commenting on what is plainly observed. I'm just re-telling what's been told by others. Total digital production is a pretty boring experience for at least some film goers.

Interest in film projection amongst the much-talked about 'general public' is growing. Here in Brisbane we have the Gallery of Modern Art that is showing 35mm film prints now. At this stage they are old prints from people's private collections but hopefully the movement back to film projection will grow in Australia. There are cinemas in Melbourne, Sydney and Katoomba that, according to the internet, can show 70mm prints. Support these cinemas if you love film. I read that a lot of cinemas actually threw out their old projectors when the digital revolution came - I can hardly believe it. If I'd been following what was happening at the time rather than being distracted by other things I would have gone around picking up a few projectors and stored them in a shed. When Tarantino's recent film came out they scrambled to get hold of projectors. Luckily a retired projectionist had saved two 70mm projectors at the back of his garden shed. I'm wondering who they get to do the projection here. An excellent new line of projectors could be developed and manufactured - there are places in the world with low manufacturing costs and they would love to get the work. Though big studios call the shots. Depite the interest, film projection might not take off big time because there mightn't be a big enough dollar in it. But if film had to survive as purely an origination medium with digital projection film will probably still survive. The end of classical music has been prophesied for about about 60 years and it's still going and people make careers out of it. Audiences pay for this music. When studios realised total digital does not result in big mega bucks they will remember real film and realise that that's the one thing you can't get at home. You can truly only get real theatre film in a cinema.

I've noticed that a lot of Miller fluid head tripods have 75mm bowls. Some cinematographers say to go for only 100mm and 150mm yet Miller (made in Australia) have a very good reputation. What is the disadvantage of a 75mm? I have a theodolite tripod that's quite solid and if I could just find a video fluid head for it that would fit onto its 40mm 'bowl' that would be great. I need something that's going to work for a Bolex H16.

I've been thinking about this too. I have noisy MOS cameras and soon I want to shoot a movie with dialogue. I can't afford a sync-sound system. My tentative plan at this stage is to record sound with all takes, using something like a Zoom digital recorder. Do something like a clapper thing if this helps at the start of all takes. Then have the actors come in for dubbing sessions. They listen very carefully to the on-location sound and timing of their lines, with all the coffee-grinder noise of the camera also on the track, while watching their lips on the computer screen. Then dub their lines again, in the studio. Or even outside if necessary, or in different locations to get the right ambience. Is there a book on this technique? I think this is how the Spaghetti westerns might have been shot. I think some of them were filmed using noisy MOS cameras.

I ended up buying an L-398 too. Hopefully it arrives next week - about the same time as a roll of 50D. That shutter angle feature sounds really nice.

Every point you raise I've gone through many times. I'm familiar with all the arguments for and against, both material/scientific and spiritual. I've spoken with many people and read many books and seen a lot of things. Yes, there's a lot of dark in the world. But that's not the final answer, there is light beyond the dark, that is more powerful, and which is the final truth of our existence. But, you do have to search for it, and never give up searching. If you do, in all sincerity, believe me, you will find it. If you want to.

I believe we have a soul - that we are not merely biological machines. But I can say no more, I believe, as I think the rules state we're not to discuss such topics :)

"Jaffas" is plural for "Jaffa" in Australia: small spheres of chocolate, covered with orange-flavoured red sugar coating. Famously associated with the movies here, at least some years ago. Named after a small, sweet orange. Anyway, back to Blade Runner ... please excuse my reminiscence.

Yes, my experience too: in the 70's there weren't a lot of cinemas. Going to the films was a real event - catching train into the city on a Saturday morning with friends. It was a lot of fun. The theatres were huge, with enormous red curtains covering the screen. An organist was off to one side playing a Wurlitzer in some of the theatres. He would play themes from the film usually. Then slowly sink into the pit (literally, on a hydraulic lift) as the curtains opened and the ads came on (still picture frames that were slid into place by hand). Next the movie film ads came on. Time to go and get a packet of Jaffas or some popcorn or ice-cream. House lights dimmed and then the "short" as it was called was shown - a short film usually about 30 minutes long, or less. Then if finished and, rather magically, the large red curtains would close. Anticipation grew. The audience instinctively got silent as they saw those curtains close. Then the film projector came on again, and if it was a big feature movie you would see the projectionist flip the cinemascope lens in front of the light hitting the curtain. You would hear the funny rolling, mechanical sound as the dark screen outlines shifted to 'cinemascope position,' at the same time as the curtains opened again and then the film company logo was there on the screen. It was a very 'theatrical' procedure. I think I've remembered the sequence correctly - it was a while ago. Then after the movies it was take away meal, then down to the video/pin-ball arcade for a couple of hours, then back to the train station and home.

Earlier this year, Bruce McNaughton at Aranda Film in Australia was selling two Arri IIC cameras modified to 2 perf. I don't know if they sold. I think from memory one camera with hard front and PL mount was for sale for 4K USD and the other one with original turret for about 3.5K.

Macks, digital is here to stay. That's not what this thead is about. We're talking about film, and whether it will be "killed." I'm saying it's still the gold standard, and always will be, because it is artistically a higher quality and a more down to earth and real medium - a crucial aspect. If people keep shooting on film, Kodak or someone else will keep making it. I don't understand the point you're driving at.

Stage and screen are two different forms of art. Stage never pretends to be cinema. If there is a great medium competing with a great medium, no problem, let the ticket sales show the way. If there is a cheap medium pushing out a quality medium - and pretending to be the same medium, and at times using deception to clear its path, that's a problem. Film is a higher quality. A lot of people are uncomfortable with that. People who play digital clarinets are sometimes jealous of violinists who practice very hard to get where they got, and who required a lot of talent to do what they do. It's just the way of things. Some things are just better value as art. It's a painful lesson of the human condition. Art is a tough road.

One final point. Digital in some cases is really an old guy's format. It's for people who've seen it all and gotten tired of the game. I don't see it as the future. Now, that's an unusual way of seeing it I suppose, but that's how I do. Film is the future for cinema.

Film projection might work as a 'marketed' concept. With all the multiplexes, dedicate one cinema to 'shot on film, projected on film.' Okay, to get up and running, some movies might have to be shot on digital but printed to film for projection. Set up the projection booth with 35mm, 16mm and if possible 70mm projectors. Develop a logo, done up in lights above the cinema entrance door, eg. This is a 'Real Film' event ('Real film' as a lit-up logo that is the same whatever cinema you see it at - a bit like the Dolby logo). If there aren't enough movies being released on film, also show prints of old movies - classics as well as old B grade films. Might have to also show digital projection movies at times in the cinema too to keep it economic. Just take down the 'Real film' sign for digital movies. But there are big boys and girls running the business side of things in the film biz and they are the people who decide these things - not the makers (the 'artists') in most cases unless they are Christopher Nolan. I think we are living through a time of poor leadership in many areas - especially in arts. We have people making poor decisions that affect enormous populations of people. In a way, we're increasingly being fed 'Soylent Green' if you know what I mean. Immature kids running the place - people who aren't down to earth, who haven't really lived, who don't really care about art though they say they do. The old movie moguls were different, because despite not being perfect they knew and cared what art is. The current crop of multi billion dollar elites running the world don't. You can tell. I agree, it's an emotional thing. Foveon will be a trap of clinical perfection of image that see every detail of every pore in a piece of fruit in wonderful colour but it will miss the emotion of film. Film is like landscape, and like life. It's emotionally and artistically complex. Walk outside and look at the world - that's what film gives. Digital is like the classic Leunig cartoon of the man and his son looking in wonder at their tv screen of a sunset, while outside over the father's shoulder is the window, and through the window is a real sunset. Film is real and digital is an electronic cheap trick. The movies are light shining through celluloid, warts and all and flicker. Foveon and Sony and all the rest give a technical perfection which is really just a fetish for technology but not a genuine interest in art. Art is always bound to tradition. Always. Cinema is light through film. Anything else is something else, and not cinema.