Jon O'Brien

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.

Thanks Doug. I will try it out.

The cinema has gone through dull patches before. In the 70's I remember catching a train into the city with a friend and we saw 'The Computer who wore tennis shoes.' Good grief! It was boring. Then along came Star Wars in 1977 and blew the whole movie going thing out of the water. Today it's not cheap Disney pictures, shot over a few days, about tennis shoe wearing nerds, it's the CGI-fests with a staff of a thousand that are simply tarted-up 70's Saturday morning tv animated cartoons re-worked into 2K. Those old tv cartoons were better.

I went to a film festival last weekend. Sat in on 1 1/2 hours of short films. Only one short film was shot on film (16mm). It looked terrific, and the program notes said something about "glorious" film. As far as I know it was the only 'real film' at the whole festival. Perhaps they should be called 'International short tv festivals.' because a lot of the digitals (I beg your pardon?) were just like something shot for a David Attenborough or Steve Backshall show. I noted with interest that the foyer of the venue proudly featured rather large and impressive coils of 35mm cinemascope print, draped artfully over a Super 8 camera and other tid-bits of celluloid production gadgets, behind glass and under lights. No varicams or Reds or anything.

A cigar or maybe pipe would complete the look. Politically incorrect, though ..

I haven't seen the new Blade Runner yet but probably will. I do think it would have been great if they'd shot it on 35mm. It would have added to the whole package, in my opinion, and brought it closer to the original picture. Yet, some are just in love with the whole digital bandwagon, which rolls on .... 4K, 3.4K, 6K ... zzzz.

Excellent advice in this thread. Thank you! I'm going to start a short music video soon on a Bolex. I have a Switar 16mm and Nikkor 50mm SLR on adapter for prime lenses. Will have to make sure I can stop down the Nikkor to f4 to get around the Rx/prism issue. Will be using 50D.

Hi, I'm about to order a roll of 16mm. Is there anything that I need to specify to the supplier about roll or perf type? It's for a S-16 Bolex reflex and the only thing I know is that it's going to be 100' Kodak Vision 3 50D. A video on youtube says that for a reflex Bolex you need to open the diaphragm about 1/3 of a stop over what the light meter says, due to the viewfinder prism diverting light away from the film. Is this correct? It makes sense: Another question if anyone knows the answer: is a Bogen 3066 fluid head designed to have the horizontal pan travel locked down? I've located a tripod and head but the seller says he's not sure if the travel can be locked. Thanks for any help.

Check the look in that rooster's eye.

I found out all the answers. For the benefit of fellow travellers upon this road: http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Sekonic_L-398

Thanks for the excellent info on tripods. I know what I need to get now. Regarding light meters, sorry to keep harping on this topic, but I want to make sure I get the best one for the price. Can anyone advise on the various models of Sekonic Studio Deluxe? There seems to be a bewildering variety ... Deluxe II and Deluxe III, models ending with M and models ending with L ... Are they all fine? It doesn't matter which one I get? Thanks!

Thank you! I've been reading the section on light meters in 'Independent Filmmaking' by Lenny Lipton and I'm wondering if a reflective light meter might be best, as at this stage I plan to do most of my filming outdoors in natural light, and occasionally indoors using light coming in through the window. According to Lipton, an incident light meter is best for int. studio lighting, so maybe a reflective meter would be best? But if a light meter like the Sekonic mentioned above is still the best way to go, sure I will get one of those. Can anyone advise on reflective vs incident light metering for mostly ext. filming?

Part of the problem with these disputes is that cinematography is both art and science. Subjective qualities can come into arty opinions that can offend the technical sensibilities of experts - and with good reason. We are all human, and fallible. Also emotion comes into play (pride etc). On the whole I would try to tone it down a bit, as a group, and maybe let one person make a sound and thorough correction if it's felt by the group that it's needed. Most learners and 'newbies' I think can quickly discern which teacher or source of information they are going to follow on a particular topic. I would above all try and avoid personal attacks against other members but that's easy to write, not always easy to do. Just bear in mind that these disputes will not go away. They are going to keep happening again and again. So develop an efficient strategy, not an en masse exasperation event because that, too, doesn't come across all that well. Learners know what's going on. If they don't, they probably shouldn't be getting into cinematography because, wow, what a complex art and science it is. But I think you are all great experts. I'm not really criticizing any of you. You all do an excellent job, and so does Tyler even though sometimes it appears he does put his foot in it a bit. Perhaps too quick to type some things. I do it too sometimes.

What happens if someone throws something at the screen? Presumably this happens on rare occasions. Easier to repair a blank white piece of material than something with pixels. Also, society has been riding a relentless wave of technological progress since at least around 1890's, a long time (you could start counting long before this, too). I think we sometimes just assume that things always keep 'getting better.' But do they? I suspect we might be reaching a point soon of technological slow-down, or at least getting tired of ever new gadgets in the area of digital entertainment. This is a very unpopular view though. A lot of people's self-belief and identity seems linked to the idea of ever-increasing digital advancement as it is a sort of allegory of evolution. No one wants to be left behind. Anyway, I'm getting philosophical.

Yes lens flares and glowing lights in the sky were beautiful in Close Encounters. It was interesting that it was quite close in some ways to Spielberg's teenage film he made, Firelight - the main vfx of which was a simple torch light with cellophane over it, then superimposed on backwound film. Inspired. I also recall some nice lens flares in Alien (the first one) but it's been a while since I watched it. I find Abrams' use of lens flare tasteful and worthwhile.

Yes, I don't think I will tamper with the groundglass if it's not easily removed and replaced. I think I will leave it alone and try to come up with another solution. Just might have to do it totally using imaginary aspect ratio while filming, checking during rehearsal and using actor's marks for the composition. I also don't want to lower the potential re-sale value of the camera. Regarding the projector, Volker in Germany who is a member here told me that he has a S-16 modified projector and enjoys excellent quality S-16 home cinema. I will email him for advice.

The poignant humour of the light-hearted headlock sound effect is somewhat apt.

Hi, if you want to shoot on a S-16 modified H16 and crop scanned film to 2.35:1, how would it be best to guide your eye when filming? Is it possible to mark the groundglass with two fine pencil lines delineating the wide aspect ratio, or is there a better way? How is the GG removed? Also, if you later wanted to project some movies shot on reversal stock, is it possible to get a S-16 projector with a modified 2.35:1 gate in it? Thank you.

http://www.ozmagazine.com/single-post/2017/09/22/For-the-Love-of-Film-An-Interview-with-Kodak%E2%80%99s-Michael-Brown An interesting phenomenon discussed in this article: with HD TV in many homes, and the great preponderance of digital cinema making, theatre owners are realising that the old film projectors might actually be a draw card - something that is extra-special compared with what can be seen at home. Interviewee says general audiences are realising what film represents. Interesting. Or as Darth Vader once said, "Impressive ....."

Is it sort of a subjective 'feel' or 'look' to the image? 35mm can have a different look and sometimes it can be difficult to say exactly why when it's shown on a tv.

Sorry, "Malthusian" I mean.

I went and saw Darren Aronofsky's new film. I said I wasn't going to but changed my mind as I wanted to see what the S-16 looked like on the big screen. I was very impressed with the look of the 16mm! I loved the grain. The S-16 was a very appropriate artistic choice for that picture as it was almost entirely shot indoors with a lot of close-ups. The whole film had an arty look. I was sitting there wishing there was going to be some outdoor shots but there were hardly any. I came away from the film loving the look of the 16mm but I think recognizing that for a period picture filmed with a lot of external shots and wide-angle views of landscape, and people and animals in the far distance, eg. on the horizon, 2 or 3 perf (and of course c-scope) would be better. I was really encouraged by what I saw! It was a pretty standard horror flick I thought. Seemed to be an allegory of relationship problems, drug misuse, anxiety, lack of love, and a fear of home invasion. In mood I found it a bit of a mix between What Lies Beneath and, at times, Monty Python's The Life of Brian. I did pick up on the fact that it seemed a bit 'anti-people.' A sort of a Malthusean whinge at humanity is getting pretty close. Didn't like parts of it at all. But the parts that were done well were indeed good filmmaking I thought.

They are fantastic ads, just watched the first few. Love the recurring neck-tightening sound effect gag.