Jon O'Brien

Hot damn, boy, a kint wait!! (slaps knee, hard). Spits tobacco out into spitoon at foot of bar. Honky tonk piano plays in background, with damsel smiling back, leaning on it and fluttering eyelids. The barman smiles knowingly, and reaches under the bar and lifts an Arri 435 onto the top of the bar. Someone whistles softly and tips their hat back.

That's a good idea Gregg about the C section aluminium. I was never very big on the engineering side of things, especially involving metal work, but sounds like a simple project. I'm more of a woodworker. Maybe I could ask someone like Bruce McNaughton if they might be interested in making a rod system that would work with it, on this aluminium hi-hat. Just all in the planning stage at the moment as my attention is mostly on 16mm at the moment but I'm thinking it through.

Australia needs filmmakers like Nolan. You know, with balls.

It's all summed up in that stills photo of Kate Winslet, seen at the start of the article on Don McAlpine, above. That says it all. That's the whole look of digital and contemporary art direction in a nutshell: metallic looking image, the colours aren't natural, and the expression on the face of the actress looks harsh and hard. It's not a soft or warm look. It would be argued that that's the 'look' they wanted. Fair enough, but to me, yuk. Compare that to a film still of Audrey Hepburn. There's warmth and light and character in that. The very light of real photography has music in it.

Christopher Nolan said in an interview a couple of years ago that he believed there was a 'conspiracy' to push film out of the industry. A bit extreme maybe. It's sometimes true that everyone decides to go a certain way for the sake of the economic health of an industry. I still believe film provides 'something' that is important to the look and feel of the movies, at least for certain genre of films eg. period movies. It's an almost intangible difference but it's there. Art/entertainment is not all science - some of it is sheer 'glitz' and an array of intangible and sometimes illogical things. The audience does care if a movie is shot on an iphone or on a Panavision Millennium 35mm. They just won't ever bother saying, that's all, they just end up voting with their feet, and it might take quite some years for that to become obvious. The industry needs to bear that in mind lest they paint themselves into a corner. Already Hollywood is not doing so well, and sure, is that only because of content? Or is content and delivery linked? They are in many other areas of the arts. The problem with digital is that it's science, there's not too much art in it. That's why they chuck funky glass in front of it to zazz up the artiness. How long can that last? The only hope that digital will finally kick film out the door is if digital can come up with some big time art in its kit-bag of goodies. So far, in my recent cinema going experience, which isn't extensive (but why is that, for someone who loves movies?), digital doesn't ring true to my eye. I felt like walking out of the Hobbit. Just looked awful to me. Anyway, back to the new Sony camera.

Yeah, sometimes I wonder if film really is finished, worldwide ... that using 35mm for Star Wars and things like that is really just the last hurrah before digital finally rids professional narrative productions of those old film cameras for good. As always, only time will tell.

With larger sensor cameras now coming out, do you think this will affect anamorphic lens use? Was reading an article on Don McAlpine (http://www.cinematographer.org.au/cms/page.asp?ID=21905). With larger sensor it is easier to get c-scope type dof and so on. Sure, anamorphic will still be used, but on the other hand spherical has the allure of being less costly and I suppose more straight forward.

Maybe that had a large bearing on George Lucas choosing to shoot his Star Wars prequels in Australia, the fact that he planned to use the 2nd film to be the first big digital feature and he knew he needed to get away from the US to do it as innovation is a big thing in Australia. I'm not making any judgements by the way - there are some obvious great advantages to the digital revolution and I think it's a wonderful match to shoot on film and distribute and present digitally even though I'd prefer to go to the movies and see film projection myself. Should I say "innovation and changing, or attempting to change, what was for a long time traditional"? No further comment -_- :)

Might be worth a brief look just to check out the 16 mil. Then split before the gore part. Ooh, don't know if I should have used the word 'split'!

I have a friend from Germany who has very firm views of the pre-eminence of German design and manufacture. I find it quite an endearing quality, also a bit amusing. The Germans and the Swiss are without doubt very clever people. So are Australians - we tend to be great innovators I think. Though I speak broadly and generally of course and am not being in any way nationalistic, not that there's anything wrong with promoting the qualities and endearments of one's country. But a Miller ... always wanted one. Miller and Arri .....

It would be interesting to know what many directors of feature movies really think deep down - and how many would put their hands up for film if they had a choice. A lot of the really talented ones for now seem to be sticking with film, and I read that in England many tv directors are saying they want to shoot on 16mm. It seems there is a big push for digital from the producer/studio end, from many DPs, and from many in technical support. But I seem to read a lot of commentary from directors, who are after all the artistic leadership of a picture (or should be), that they want to shoot film, and to some extent are going against the grain of what is being pushed by the powers that be in the industry. Lucas to some extent brought back the concept of the director as big boss of the whole shebang or at least was part of the wave. And funnily enough it was Lucas who largely brought in the feature film digital revolution. Some must wonder why it even matters, now that digital looks so good. Yet even today directors still want film despite the amazing digital revolution. I find it all really interesting. In Australia it was an article in Cinema Papers in the 80's I think (an excellent publication btw) that predicted the imminent total revolution of digital. It's now 2017 and top directors are still choosing film. That Cinema Papers prediction has, so far, not come true - though in some places it sure has! Once, in Brisbane some years ago at the old Hoyts theatre in Queen St, in the very large cinema there, they put on a showing of a new film print of My Fair Lady. I was there. The whole cinema was packed to the rafters with 'everyday' people, families, mums, dads and kids and there was an incredible atmosphere. The manager of the theatre came out on the stage before the show and gave a talk. It was a great occasion. The father I sat next to was so excited to bring his family along to see this wonderful newly made film print. I got the strong impression then that 'ordinary' non-production people do care about things like this. They do care about quality of the cinema going experience. Maybe that's what's been somewhat lost in the cinema experience lately. When the film ended you should have heard the applause, and when the lights came on seen the smiles all round. Just the content, or was it something to do with the presentation as well? Of course, it's all just anecdotal musings.

Why might a little grease be necessary in the film gate area? Is it mainly a Super 8 thing? I knew a top solo piper who performed in Scotland who used nose grease on one finger to make it easier to play the rapidly triple-played note.

Can anyone advise what they think of this Miller? The pan arms seem to be fitted upside down - they will bump into underside of camera. A Miller 30 would be for 30 lbs maximum payload? http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/MILLER-30-Fluid-HEAD-on-Miller-Compact-TRIPOD-100mm/332358108996 Also, it says it's a "compact" tripod, maximum height 63". Do those legs look sturdy enough for a maximum 10kg payload? Not sure I would buy this but I'm interested in possibly getting a used Miller at a good price.

What make and model is that lovely looking tripod and fluid head?

Just to illustrate a little of what I mean, meaning I'm not advocating for always-bright movies about Skippy (an Australian series featuring a kangaroo): A very dark movie of the 70's, when Hollywood was passing through one of its occasional dark and gloomy periods focusing on disaster and decay, and that actually had a truly uplifting theme of humanity in it, and in a lot of ways was beautiful, is Soylent Green starring Edward G. Robinson and Charlton Heston. You see something of the tragedy and beauty of the human condition in that flick. It was low budget but a real gem in my opinion.

If I may be so bold as to say so, this is the sort of film I think we need more of made in Australia. Earthy, friendly, on-location type movies like they used to be, with low or no CGI, that have a positive message.They are being made, but just not as much as formerly as far as I can see. Popular films. A movie you can go to no matter who you are, get something out of it and be genuinely entertained whether you're adult or child. Walk out of the theatre feeling more fulfilled than you were when you went in. Perhaps I wax too lyrically but for me that's a good goal or model to follow in filmmaking. Even dark noir sort of films of decades past have a positive theme behind all the darkness. There wasn't this sort of meaningless angst that society seems to currently struggle with. This straining after some sort of new Pagan belief. I don't buy it. It's not new, anyway, it's as old as the hills. That's why Lucas and Spielberg were so great and maybe still are so great. It's a big world - let's celebrate being alive and being human beings. That's it, I won't comment any more. It's possible I just need to go and see more contemporary movies at the cinema. But I do find a lot of the vision of humanity at the cinema currently too dark and uninteresting a lot of the time. Just too ..... uber-urban and off the planet, in some sort of dark la la land of over-psyched musings on existence. Okay, I haven't seen 'mother!' and aren't going to. I admit it. Having said that, I'm all for free artistic expression and different kinds of movies. I just think producers shouldn't be surprised if they end up costing a lot of money rather than making it. Good article, well-written.

Someone pass me a banjo.

David, if I could jump in and ask you a question: if you could use just one light meter, for film work eg. 16mm and 35mm for general cinematography with traditional on-location shoots and interiors for a narrative film what one would it be? That's if you don't mind saying. Thank you.

Great stuff. Thanks guys. I have a desqueezer door, Tyler, so that's all good.

The cream rises to the top. It can take a while, though, for some cream - thus the plum jobs often feature older people.

Sure, will do.

Ah! I see what you're saying. I was looking at it from a cropped perspective. I think it's fair to say that as a cropped image, Ultra-16 2.40:1 is a larger image area?

Ultra-16 is a bigger frame than S-16, also when cropped to 2.40:1, but maybe I missed the point you were making. Thanks for sharing your valuable experience. It's not directly relevant to the original topic, but can anyone comment on the qualities of Lomos, for instance the 50/T2.5, 75/T2.5 and 100/T3.3 anamorphic primes, as might be rented? What sort of extra costs are involved for a set of 3 such prime lenses from what they quote per day? There is a branch in Brisbane I could ask, but presumably they would have to ship up from Melbourne. Is there often a requirement to hire for more than a day? Must you be a company with solid industry experience to hire? I suppose it depends. I will ring and ask but would like to be slightly more informed first. Feasibility is my interest at this stage. Sorry if my questions irk those who've already made clear that this sort of gear is not for small projects. Your point is noted.

Thanks, your advice is really appreciated. I know what type of light meter to get now. Regarding the tripod, and also Gregg's good idea of teaming up with locals, I introduced myself to a filmmaker here a few months ago, he's into digital only. He showed me his cameras, tripods and editing studio. I might ask if I can rent one of his fluid head tripods for a brief shoot. There's not much I could reciprocate with as he's not into film. Will just have to shell out for a nice tripod soon. Maybe get by on the first reel with handheld or some sort of monopod or cheap tripod. There's a nice Miller fluid head tripod on gumtree in Sydney (I think) for 350, wooden legs, but it's a 'junior' model, I think designed for super 8.

P.S. I realise the Sea Wolves was not shot on 2-perf. It was likely 1.85:1 spherical 4-perf.