Jon O'Brien

I mostly watch old movies ... when I can. Some contemporary films but usually things like Star Wars 7 etc. Also watching the Columbo series on DVD. What a wonderful character Det. Columbo is. "Oh, there's just one more thing", as he shuffles back into the room with his cheap cigar and daggy raincoat, looking like one of the more idiotic policemen in town. And yet he's the best they've got, and his boss knows it.

My first reel of Super 8 I got back in the mail when I was 13 I projected onto the wall of the house, a small image just over a foot wide, and was sort of saying to myself, "Whaaaat?". I was disappointed by the look of it. I'd grown up with 35mm still slide photography. Was very grateful for Super 8 because it allowed me to make movies but all the time I was using it, for years, I was hoping and dreaming for the day I could shoot 16 and who knows maybe one day 35. I never want to go back to it. One big thing that frustrated me was the inability to backwind for special effects, though I did manage to do it for short sections of film. But if you like all the attributes of Super 8 and that's what you're chasing, that's great. There was nothing like getting a fresh new cartridge into the camera and closing the door, and seeing that bit of yellow through the plastic window. Back in action again!

Let's just hope Kodak know what they're doing, financially. I too think they might be taking a risk - and is it worth it? Some of the posts on this thead have been very enjoyable and genuinely humorous to read. There's some good value writing here, even if the grammar at times might not be perfect.

Well, it's called truth. I'm not digging any holes for myself or anyone else. I'm pointing out error. Heaps of Australians have been pointing this out for ages. I don't care about risks of being sidelined. Give it all ya got. I care about art and the health of an industry.

If it wasn't obvious, the examples above were just that - examples. There are many other varieties of politically-correct 'virtue-signalling' ("Look at me - I'm a good person! I believe in all the right things") rampant in the arts now. The arts and many other institutions are run by politically like-minded people. Non-believers are eventually found out and are not re-hired. Like-minded friends are given jobs, a sort of political nepotism. If one holds a different view one learns to keep shut one's cakehole or lose one's job. Thus one view is over-represented, and the people of that view can never figure out why they never seem to know anyone of a differing view - it's because they can't speak up. The political side of the alleged tolerance is actually the intolerant side. 'Gender equality' I often find hilarious. I've been in so many workplaces where I'm nearly the only man there. Had heaps of women bosses. Been job-hunting and seen ad after ad with "employer of choice for women" in a little box down the bottom. Racism? Yes, I've seen it, experienced it, and it certainly exists, but it is blown out of all proportion by films and the media. Most people are not racists. Why continually lecture the 90% for the sake of the 10% who never listen anyway?

Let's say, for the sake of argument, you are a woman-bashing racist. You go the movies, and see a film that depicts Australian men of a certain type as woman-bashing racists. You look over to your wife, bored, or at least not touched in any way at all by what the film is trying to 'educate' you about, and say, "love, go and get me another ice-cream, darl". Being a repressed Aussie sheila, she submissively sidles away and does your bidding. You go home later that night and bash your wife, just for the heck of it. You are, after all, a woman-basher racist. You yell at the Indian neighbours over the fence for good measure, before going to bed. Has the movie somehow miraculously cured you of your woman-bashing racism? Well, no, it hasn't. In fact, you didn't even notice that the film had a lesson to teach you. Why? Because you don't think, and you have about the intellectual capacity of half a can of beer. So what about the 85% of the other people in the cinema who went to see the picture that night, who were plain, decent, intelligent souls, who are neither racists nor wife-bashers? Did they appreciate being lectured too, yet again, that Australians have a social problem that needs to be constantly addressed by over-charged entertainment types who curiously see themselves as a type of moral priesthood? And this covers lots of different types of lefty propaganda - not just wife bashing and racism. We're talking climate change and all sorts of other stuff. Well, if they're true-believer Guardian readers they might smile smugly to themselves as they cuddle their wives later that night. It feels good to feel good, to rail against the ugly unwashed. To hell with entertainment for any real thinkers and observers, though. Look, it's just all too cheap. Too easy. You want to know the truth? Most Australians are bloody decent people. We need feel-good stories, not feel-righteous stories. There is a huge, huge difference.

The other thing we need here in Australia, pretty desperately actually, is to give up on pushing 'social issues' in feature productions. Just this morning I see that the ABC is promoting a new Australian movie, a sequel to Red Dog. The ABC couldn't resist putting a bit of a plug in for the standard Aussie-style social-issues propaganda which apparently the filmmaker, too, felt was necessary to add some punch to his picture. What needs to be realised is the level of sour taste that is in so many people's mouths at the moment regarding holier-than-thou social posturing. Equality and all that. Everyone knows all about them after decades of social engineering. Enough! We are bored of being told how to be good. You know what I'm talking about, this thing is good, this thing is bad, let's all get on board with this mantra. Believe me, something like at least half of Australia can't bear any more of this tiresome lecturing. It kills interest in films. Australians are told they are woman-bashing racists. How many decades can a people be lectured to? Sure, if you are a filmmaker with strong political feelings, make your movies, but don't expect your films to be broadly popular. We need to get the cheap propaganda out of our main sources of entertainment - that's if we actually believe ourselves to be entertainers. Keep the politics in the small, arty films - if that's what you want to watch and that's what you want to make. I'm tired of the ABC. They are overpaid bores. What do they make that is worth watching? What do they do for Australian filmmakers?

It would be great to see some workshops/short courses in 35mm film acquisition/origination here. From a skills-base point of view it just seems, well, wise to consider the top-level testimonies that one can read on Kodak's website. Many of the world's greatest current filmmakers say that retaining some connection with the photochemical film process is of very great importance. I've spoken with several artists too (not all filmmakers) and the view so far is universal. Film is more artistic. It just is. Digital origination can also be artistic too, so I can see both sides of the argument. Of course there is a huge place for a fully digital production process which will never be threatened.

But for major feature productions it's now clear that film isn't going away - it looks like it is going to stay quite strong. Though, who in Australia now has the ability to shoot and teach film production with 35mm who is not over 75? I think it's worthy of comment. We are relatively-speaking an economically healthy nation and it's odd we don't have more choice for artists. I think it would be an artistically-wise choice ... if it could be done. It's like in Carousel, when Billy and Julie mull it over, thinking about it, and sing, "If I loved you". Okay, that last bit was a shot at humour, plus I desired to bring before the imagination the picture and the music of that scene, just for fun. That's if you like musicals.

Just out of interest, what's happened to all the old cinema film projectors? Did cinemas tend to keep them in a backroom, or against the back wall of the projector room, or did they sell them on ebay, or give them away/throw them away? It's incredible to think of the numbers of 35mm projectors there must be sitting idle.

So, it looks like film is still the best of the best. It's the elephant in the room softly and warmly breathing down the necks of all who say, yeah, film is nice and quaint, but .... Personally I'd take a sack of Red and Alexa air-cooled 'brains' and put 'em in a potato sack and heave them as far into the sea off the rocky heads at Noosa as I could.

Interesting article from 2006. Hadn't seen this before:

https://www.themonthly.com.au/monthly-essays-peter-craven-cut-has-australian-film-industry-lost-its-way-215

My experience has only been in projecting reversal film. What difference is there in the look of a projected 16mm print compared with reversal film? Is there a slight loss of sharpness? Also, is it possible to shoot anamorphic with a S16 camera, and then view it as 1:2.40 with an anamorphic projector lens? All of my experience is some years ago, and was with reversal Super 8 and regular 16mm. I would love to get into real film making again. I even look forward to hearing the sound of a projector again in a darkened room.

One starts to see the appeal of 2-perf.

Thank you. Anyone know what, approximately, a PV 40-80mm 2x anamorphic lens or similar lens costs to hire per day? I emailed PV but they wouldn't tell me their prices unless I gave them dates. To get an idea of a date I need to know what something costs. Grubby amateurs hovering around outside the door of the glitzy city shop, maybe. I don't know.

That's interesting. I thought Arriflex were the ones with the longest flange depth because of the type of mirror.

Neglab in Sydney is now available for motion picture film processing of Super 8, 16mm and 35mm original negative. The proprietor is Werner Winkelmann.

After a small time has elapsed, one is no longer able to edit, to make it better. My post above might be interpreted the wrong way and I apologise for my wording. I would not like to suggest that being "constrained" to PV would be a problem. In fact, it would be a wonderful opportunity to use such lenses, the chance of a lifetime. Let me put it another way: what other fine lens opportunities might exist? Apparently Angenieux makes an adapter. Has anyone used this?

Anyone want to come to Australia to make a feature length movie on 35mm or 65mm film? I hear from a reliable source very close to the action that Kodak is thinking of opening a lab here, but they will need a major picture to come here and shoot on film to make that happen. Get the word out Aussies, to business people/investors/producers. Australia is a great place to film - it has everything. Great locations, stable climate, good infrastructure. Let's see if we can get film up and running here again, even if it's origination on film and then digital projection. Am I a dreamer? Of course I am. I think that's good by the way. Someone's got to be or nothing would ever get done. I'd like to see a film studio get established on Queensland's Sunshine Coast. Now that would be a great place to make a movie.

All the best Brenton with your new S16 project. May you enjoy yourself and find success.

If you had the use of a 35mm film camera with a PV mount on it (such as some old Arris, which are advertised as PL mount but actually have a PV mount if you look closely), what lenses could you use with it? Would you be constrained to just rent from Panavision, or are there lens mount adapters so that you could use non-Panavision lenses?

Here is probably a really dumb question but I'm sorry, I must ask it. In the original purely photochemical Scope filming process, circa 70's, does the camera negative have to leave unexposed the little area of the film frame where the soundtrack later goes, or does it not matter? I'm guessing it did have to be left unexposed, due to the contact printing process. If the area where the soundtrack went contained image in the original negative then this would also be exposed on the contact print, spoiling the area where the optical soundtrack was to be added.

Ah, so my thinking has probably been too 'perfectionist'. The lens doesn't really need to be centred. Only in zoom shots there would be a problem. Still, I suspect some of these conversions may have been centred for S35. I'm actually getting more interested in Super 35, and less interested in anamorphic, at least as a way to get started with 35mm. Easier to find lenses, and more image area than 2-perf.

Apparently there were a few 2C's that were converted, maybe around 30 years ago or more, to PL hardfront, and the gate was custom machined to full aperture S35 (not the Scope gate). One sold listing I looked at on ebay went into a bit of detail and said these cameras were set up to be used either for Super 35 or for anamorphic. But that can't be right as the lens must be centred for one or the other. Were these early S35 conversions, maybe for TV series filming non-dialogue shots? Is it possible to tell just by looking through the lens mount if the lens is centred for full aperture or for sound - how wide, approximately, is the optical sound track on an anamorphic 35mm print - maybe 2 or 3mm? Peering through the film door, the right hand side of the gate on an Arri 2C would have to be very close to the film claw slot, as Dom said, on a S35 conversion.

Are there some quirks about shooting 2x anamorphic that might be encountered if you've never shot anamorphic before - particularly in relation to film? There's lens flare and bokeh, and obviously it's the 2.40:1 format. I mean potential issues of camera movement, pans and the like, should these in general be slower, should there be less camera movement, maybe no handheld, compared to spherical shooting, to get the most out of the medium? Maybe there's no real difference and you quickly get used to it, beyond the obvious compositional differences. Camera and lens combination would be a lot bigger, making some shooting a bit more difficult.

Rental lenses has got me thinking. Buy some short ends, get processing and DI in Sydney. I already have a great old wooden tripod (for a theodolite!) made by Kern so would just need a head for it.

Thanks for this information. It would be cool to originate on anamorphic 35mm film. It looks so great. Will 35mm projection be big again? Do we have the film processing capability here? No. Is it all fairly impossible at the moment? Yes. But I know the interest is out there. And there's always digital. Anyone want a learner cameraman :)

Okay, I've re-read all David's posts on this thread and I think I now understand what he means. Yes, a 2C most likely has a full aperture gate ('silent') with lens centred for sound. So it really does come down to working out how to work with the groundglass you have fitted, or fit a new one. Sorry, took me a while to understand all this.