Michael Ryan

Hello All, First off I have to tell you that I love Apple. To me, they are one of the best U.S. companies above or below the radar. Steve Jobs should be given big props for what he has done for his company and for those of us who enjoy using his computers (I have used nothing but Mac since 1989). When I turn my computer on it opens to the Apple website. Today they have a "story" on there about the nasty reports the news media is spreading about worker conditions at the Chinese plant that makes the iPod. I read this report. Now, keep in mind that this was written by Apple. I haven't laughed this hard since I read that David Fincher was the greatest American director to come along in the last 20 years. I'm not kidding. This is very funny stuff. Think Matt Groening meets Jerry Lewis, live at the French National Playhouse. You really need to read this report before they take it down. This is one of the best comedy script outlines that I have ever read. This is such a great movie idea...it's so visual. The comedy elements are endless. Read it. Tell me I'm wrong. The BIG picture. I think that the original story was a "plant" by some company that is being killed by iPod sales, which is a very large part of the market. You know, one of those last ditch efforts to kill the goose that laid the golden or in this case white egg. "Hello, McFly!!!!". Now, before you think too badly of those purchasing agents at Apple, who cut those BIG, BIG orders with the Chinese suppliers...you need to do one thing. Go to Wal-Mart. At random pick a few dozen products and check to see where they were made. Faster than you can say Chairman Mao, you will quickly realize that MADE IN CHINA rolls off your lips faster than a yellow alert before election day. Wow, now this IS a price roll back...golly. A pal of mine works for an auto parts company that cuts BIG, BIG orders for brake rotors (the heavy metal bits that help stop your car). For years these were made in the USA. About a year ago this company began cutting BIG, BIG orders for these brake rotors from a Chinese supplier. (sidenote: too bad for the U.S. company that use to make the rotors. It had to let go lots and lots of workers. Too bad for the town the workers lived in as well. Alas, they won't be screening Mr. Fincher's next classic at the local movie theater...it closed.) My pal looked at some of the facts and figures and was shocked. His conversation went something like this, "Do you know how heavy thousands of brake rotors are? Do you know how far away China is? Do you know how much fuel it takes to get one of those cargo ships from China to the U.S.? Do you know how little we pay for these Chinese brake rotors? How do they do that?" How do they do that? For a brief moment I visualize a scene in my mind where a whole gang of top executives are sitting around a large board room and just for a minute they all sit back and day dream. They day dream about how do those Chinese suppliers sell us brake rotors at prices we haven't seen since CHARLES ANGELS was a number one rated TV show. Then, the president of the company stands up (someone like Peter Finch if he were still alive) and says, "Golly fellas, how do they do it? Come on, Johnson, let's go to lunch." The credits roll. Fade to black. Mike

Ahhhhh......OK.....right....now I remember that. In other news, it seems Dewey has defeated Truman...... Mike

"Its Pixar and Miramax units will not be affected by the shake-up, the company indicated. Oren Aviv, who has held the title of chief creative officer, will oversee live-action development and production. " Hello All, I had to laugh to myself when I read a part of the original news story quote at the top of this thread. The news guy who wrote the story did his readers a bit of a dis-service in the way he mentions "Disney's Pixar Unit" In fact, the wildly succesful Pixar, is not "owned" by Disney, but by Apple Computer CEO and boy wonder Steve Jobs. In fact, Pixar has dropped Disney (who distributes Pixar'a films) this year and is looking for a new partner to distribute their films. I couldn't believe that Disney didn't "pony up" with a better distribution deal to keep Pixar. Let's see.... all of Pixar's films have been hits, making hundreds of millions of dollars...do you think we should keep this relationship? You don't have to be a Harvard business grad to figure that one out. But then again, the suits at Disney couldn't figure that out. Maybe that's way they are getting rid of 650 people? Mike

Hello All, Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Fuji announce a few months ago that they are discontinuing the film that this camera uses? Mike

Hello All, First off, the aim of this post is not to offend anyone, but a lot of creative people on this board really have no clue when it comes to the world of business (of course, this could be seen as a very good thing). I have worked in some large corportations (not related to filmmaking) and while I haven't made any big decisions I have seen the corporate mind and thinking first hand. First off, if you don't know, I need to tell you that we have some real angels who are watching our back when it comes to film at Kodak. Because I would bet my next paycheck that when the President of Kodak listens to the ideas of the major stockholders I'm sure they are asking why Kodak is making "any" film let alone Super-8. I'm sure they want Kodak to be 100% digital ASAP. So, to those angels at Kodak, keep going to bat for us. There are many of us who know you men and women are doing your best to keep film alive. I'm always amazed that there are still parts of Kodak that care so much about the film industry. Because, in case you haven't noticed, Kodak in Rochester use to employ 60,000 people. Last I heard they were down to 15,000. One Kodak customer that wants to say THANK YOU to those men and women that keep film alive at Kodak. Mike

Hello All, Last night I watched Woody Allen's STARDUST MEMORIES. It's a film that most Allen fans don't rate very highly, but I just love it. As I was watching it last night, I couldn't help but notice how INCREDIBLE the cinematography was. Shot in black and white, with great long shots, scenes where the characters would walk out of frame, but the shot would still hold and you would only hear their voices. I really loved his use of shallow depth of field. God, it was refreshing. There were lots of exterior, daytime shots where all of the background was out of focus. It was simply spectacular. If you are into black and white I would highly recommend this film. Excellent. Like a feast for the eyes. After the film I really thought about Gordon's use of film and space and focus. As the world wants to move faster and faster into HD filmmaking, and everyone's goal seems to be having the highest resolution and the sharpest overall image. I couldn't help notice how completely effective it was to have lots of STARDUST MEMORIES out of focus! Where does it say that everything has to be in sharp focus in every scene? In any event, please check out his work in STARDUST MEMORIES, and in fact, all of the films he has shot for Woody Allen. What a DP! Mike

First off, I want to give a big THANK YOU to David's last post. Unfortunately, most forums around the Internet make one feel that they are participating in a teenage pukefest, where the F word seems to be the extreme limit of their vocabulary. It's so refreshing to come to a forum where people are civil and want to exchange ideas and knowledge like adults. I also want to second David's request that everyone sign with their real name or at the least their real first name. When I respond to some questions I like to use the persons name not, "Hello There, Blue Dick Weed Motor." Mike

Hello Dan, Wow. Very nicely done! I really liked the cinematography, especailly since it was shot in DV. I almost always perfer film. It's obvious that you really understand the mechanics of filmmaking. Nice editing too. Actors were solid. The storyline wasn't my kind of thing, it didn't draw me in. I didn't feel much for the character. Dan, it's great watching short films like this because it shows that you have the talent, now lets see what you can do with it. Good luck. Mike

Hello All, These lenses are from a fairly rare Kodak Reflex Special which looks like the Mitchell 16mm. It's a very well built and well thought out 16mm. Lots of great features. The 7 primes are 150mm, 100mm, 75mm, 50mm, 25mm, 15mm and 10mm. They are Kodak Ekton made in France by Angenieux. They are an R mount. I believe this camera is from the late '60s or early '70s. Mike

It does not matter what the focus scale on the lens says. -Tim Hello Tim, Thanks for the info. If you have the time, what do you mean by your quote exactly? Why do you see some DP's with a measuring tape setting the focus? Is this old school? I can see the ground glass when I look into the lens opening and it appears to be set correctly. I guess I could also shoot some film to test the focus as well. Can you recommend any tests I can do with real film to check out the focus? Thanks, Mike

Hello All, I mainly shoot in Super 8, but I have recently bought a 16mm camera. It is a reflex camera with a mirror shutter and I focus on ground glass. The camera has 7 primes lenses. It also has a spot on the side of the camera where you can hang a tape measure and set the focus on the lens (they have the markings in feet and inches). So I set up the camera 12 feet from the wall and put a card up that has grid lines on it. I took each lens and focused on the card by my eye (through the lens) and focus mark the 12 foot mark on the lens. Here is the problem. 3 of the lenses matched my focus test. By that I mean I focused with my eye (though the lens) and then I looked at the side of the lens and it read 12 feet, so both agreed. However, when I focused my 150mm lens, when I focused by my eye the side of the lens read 15 feet. So if I filmed something with this lens at 12 feet would it be out of focus? I also realize that the F stop plays a role in this as well. At a higher F stop would my depth of field cover this...if indeed it is a problem? The other lenses were only off by 5 or 6 inches. I wouldn't think that was much of a problem, but you tell me. Thanks for the info. Mike

Hello Chris, I'll post some better pictures next week. In the meantime here is a site that has a small photo of the Kodak Reflex Special. www.cedu.niu.edu/blackwell/multimedia/high/thumbs/205.html The front has a turrent so you can place up to three lenses on the camera at one time. I'm not sure why this was done as this is a tripod only camera. It would be very hard to hand hold and also very heavy, especially with the motor mounted. The motors are shaped like a small box and they "click" on and off by pushing two levers (very excellent idea). The 24 sync motor is fairly quite, but the manual recommends a "lead and felt" lined blimp. Mike

Hello All, I just picked up my Kodak Reflex Special with seven prime lenses, very sweet! It also came with the manual and another manual that shows you how to take the entire camera apart complete with exploding views (also very nice). The camera has a mirror shutter and I can see that it has dust on it and maybe a finger print. What should I use to clean the mirror with? The outside of the camera has that black wrinkle finish, I think it's epoxy. What should I use to clean that with? This is a rare 16mm camera and has LOADS of great features. I think it's from the early '70s. As far as construction goes...this camera is the real deal. All metal, and very well put together. It kind of looks like a small Mitchell. In a few days I'll try and post some pictures. It also came with a 400 ft magazine and 1200 ft mag. Two motors. One 24 sync and the other variable speed. I think from 8 thru 64. Mike

Hello There, Does anyone here know anything about the 16mm Kodak Reflex Special? I was told that Kodak only made about 800 of these before they stopped making them? They are from late '60s early '70s? Any info would be great. Thanks, Mike

Hello All, Has anyone had any experience with recording film sound with a "Ribbon Microphone". I have been told that this type of mic provides the best sound if you want a really nice, natural voice recording. Play back sounds like the person is really there and not recorded. Mike

Hello All, Here's my two cents... SLEEP ALWAYS is a "MUST HAVE" for all indie filmmakers, especially Super 8 filmmakers. The world of Super 8 filmmaking has a ton of wannabe filmmakers in the mix. Rick Palidwor and Mitch Perkins are part of a very small group of indie filmmakers who actually had the balls to take a format like Super 8 and push it to the extreme limits. SLEEP ALWAYS is really ground breaking. It's worth seeing on that level alone, because you will learn something from it (and you may actually enjoy it also). If you really love film, then you should be into seeing all kinds of films. Don't get me wrong, I really enjoy a good Hollywood film. However, Hollywood films are very specific in the way they deliver their entertainment. Indie films like SLEEP ALWAYS stay very true to the director's "vision". SLEEP ALWAYS is not a Hollywood film, but if you are open to it, I think you will find SLEEP ALWAYS to be a very well made independent film. It's interesting, makes you think and is worth a view if you love film. Mike

Hello David, The Kodak place near Black Creek was HUGE. I think the signs may still say Kodak, but almost all the buildings are vacant. I think they are going to be turned into condos. The place on Monogram is a fraction of the size. One good note, because of the large film industry in Toronto Kodak's movie films are kept in stock in Toronto (including Super 8). Mike

Hello Kircules, You are correct about someone trying this already. Actually it's been done by tons of people mainly in Super 8 filmmaking. First off, you should pick up the currect issue of SUPER 8 TODAY magazine (which can be bought at www.super8today.com). It has an interview with the co-director of the Super8 feature film SLEEP ALWAYS. Rick Palidwor explains in lots of detail how they sync'ed up the sound with a very similar idea. It can be done, it's a bit of a pain, but certainly not impossible. Mike

Thank you, Phil. I have moved my post over to the sound forum. Mike

Hello All, I shoot digital video and film on a serious hobby and sometimes semi-pro level. I've had to learn a lot about the various elements of filmmaking as sometimes I'm the cinematographer, sound guy, lighting guy, director, guy who gets coffee... I have realized that I'm no expert in most of these areas, but I do some better than others and I know most of the basics. Before today, I thought I knew a lot about sound. As it turns out I know very little as there is LOTS to know about the recording of audio. I was talking to a professional sound guy that I have coffee with from time to time and he told me he had a deal on a second hand audio recorder (he knew I was looking for something to record my film sound with). So, he told me he had a Sony TC-D5 Pro II portable audio cassette recorder. It was in great shape and he was selling it for 100.00 dollars. I said to him, "Cassette? You have got to be kidding me. Who would use an audio cassette to record anything?" Ahhhhh. Ignorance is bliss. I'm the living proof. We went back to his home studio and he plugged a AKG mic into the Sony's XLR inputs (Yes, it had XLR jacks) and we recorded some dialog (well, me reading a book if you want to call that dialog). I listened to the play back through a pair of decent headphones (not super expensive, just average). All I could say is WOW!!!!!! After I wiped the egg off my face I reached into my pocket and pulled out 100.00 dollars. The sound out of that Sony was incredible, really good. And I mean "good" as in it can be in any project that I'm going to sell for money good. Then he introduced me to an audio compressor. So he took the already good dialog and he ran it through his audio compressor and it was like magic. He filled me in on all the basics of what an audio compressor does (which I won't go into here) and I thought to myself where has this peice of equipment been all my life. I wrote this just to say that you can always learn something. Maybe in filmmaking you never stop learning. Just in sound there is so much to understand. Before today I would not have given you 2 bucks for a Sony TC-D5 Pro II audio cassette recorder. Today, it's a really valuable part of my sound department. Mike

Hello All, I shoot digital video and film on a serious hobby and sometimes semi-pro level. I've had to learn a lot about the various elements of filmmaking as sometimes I'm the cinematographer, sound guy, lighting guy, director, guy who gets coffee... I have realized that I'm no expert in most of these areas, but I do some better than others and I know most of the basics. Before today, I thought I knew a lot about sound. As it turns out I know very little as there is LOTS to know about the recording of audio. I was talking to a professional sound guy that I have coffee with from time to time and he told me he had a deal on a second hand audio recorder (he knew I was looking for something to record my film sound with). So, he told me he had a Sony TC-D5 Pro II portable audio cassette recorder. It was in great shape and he was selling it for 100.00 dollars. I said to him, "Cassette? You have got to be kidding me. Who would use an audio cassette to record anything?" Ahhhhh. Ignorance is bliss. I'm the living proof. We went back to his home studio and he plugged a AKG mic into the Sony's XLR inputs (Yes, it had XLR jacks) and we recorded some dialog (well, me reading a book if you want to call that dialog). I listened to the play back through a pair of decent headphones (not super expensive, just average). All I could say is WOW!!!!!! After I wiped the egg off my face I reached into my pocket and pulled out 100.00 dollars. The sound out of that Sony was incredible, really good. And I mean "good" as in it can be in any project that I'm going to sell for money good. Then he introduced me to an audio compressor. So he took the already good dialog and he ran it through his audio compressor and it was like magic. He filled me in on all the basics of what an audio compressor does (which I won't go into here) and I thought to myself where has this peice of equipment been all my life. I wrote this just to say that you can always learn something. Maybe in filmmaking you never stop learning. Just in sound there is so much to understand. Before today I would not have given you 2 bucks for a Sony TC-D5 Pro II audio cassette recorder. Today, it's a really valuable part of my sound department. Mike

Hello All, Yes, they were vinyl albums. I don't remember the name of his equipment, but it had tubes. I must say that the sound coming from this system had a "warmth" that my digital system does not. John Pytlak makes a really interesting point. There is so much sound in modern films, you tend to forget that all this sound should have a logical relationship. Does it? Do the sound guys think about this stuff or do they just like putting a lot of sound together because they can. It would be interesting to hear the sound guys from MATCH POINT talk about this. The sound in the movie CITIZEN KANE came out of one speaker...I don't think there were many people who asked for their money back. Are we using 5.1 or 7.1 because we can? Maybe the better question is: should we? When is less sound better? The film composer Bernard Herrmann was hired on Hitchcock's THE BIRDS to write a film score...instead he only added the sounds of birds. There is no film score in THE BIRDS. Is there any director today that would have the integrity or power to do this today? Interesting. Mike

Hello All, First off I have to tell everyone that I love modern film sound. 5.1, sound effects, sounds coming from the rear speakers....as they say in Vegas, I'm in baby, I'm in. The other day I happen to be having a discussion with an old time sound guy and he was telling me (in great detail) all about the virtues of MONO sound and very simple STEREO sound.. Hmmmmm. It did make me think. He played me some jazz albums that were recorded in the early '60s and I have to tell you that the sound was AMAZING. As good or better than many of the recordings I listen to now. I was SHOCKED when he told me that these albums from the '60s were recorded with only TWO MICROPHONES!!!! Some of these jazz bands had over a dozen players. He was also telling me about mono sound. He is his belief that good mono sound is far better than really poorly recorded stereo sound. Also he pointed out that many (if not all) of Woody Allen's films are released in mono sound. When I got home I grabbed my copy of MATCH POINT and sure enough it was in mono. The big shock was if you were to have asked me right after the film I would have thought the sound was 5.1. I just remember the sound being very good. Is less more? Mike

Hello Freya, As I mentioned before it's obvious that we don't agree on several points, that's fine. One aspect of copyright that your posts and my posts have pointed out is that there are many aspect of copyright law that are subject to interpretation. That is why there are lawyers and courts for them to argue in. Because what I think is crystal clear may not be to someone else. However, there is one point that I'm not willing to let slip. That is the statement that "copyright is your proof of ownership". Freya, this is a very well established concept in copyright law. As I mentioned before that I have been told this concept by several lawyers, but I have also done a very quick search on the internet (Canadian sites) and there were page after page that highlighted "copyright is proof of ownership." Here is an exact quote from one of the sites: Copyright gives an owner the sole right to copy his or her work or permit someone else to do so. You can register your copyright with the Canadian Intellectual Property Office . You don't have to do so, but it can be a useful proof of ownership. I picked this site because it is simple and gets to the point. You can read it at www.smallbusinessbc.ca/bizideas-copyright.php The best thing about this thread is that it is making a lot of people THINK. That is always good. Mike

Really nice transfer. Your buddy should do this for a living. Mike