Michael Ryan

Right on, Matt! It's funny I was thinking the same thing myself. I was going to say, It's EASY to tell who is under 30 and who is over 30. There is a reason why this thread is so popular. Because I started it as a discussion on Motion Picture Theft, but, really at the heart of all this is the decline of morals and ethics in the Western world. And this bothers a great many people. People who care about the world we live in. It's not just about ME. As you move through life, you find out it's really about US. How we treat each other, how we respect each other, how we help each other. I mentioned this before, but it is really worth saying again, morals and ethics are very good things. It holds our society together. It is the thin line that pulls us all back from what would be chaos and a world that would not be worth living in. You can spin it any way you want if it makes you feel better, but when you take something that is not yours and you don't have permission or you don't pay for it....it's stealing. I'm a little upset that more responsible people have not stood up and posted on this thread. I know there are some major Hollywood types here and Motion Picture Theft effects you directly. You know who you are. You need to post and show your "colors". You need to lead by example, even if you won't come off as cool or hip. To those of you on this thread that are totally OK with stealing, I'm not that naive to think that this post is going to convert you. What I truly hope it does is make you THINK. Because most people have never had to think about serious matters. They shuffle through life following the crowd. Doing what everyone else is doing. You need to THINK, QUESTION, REASON, BELIEVE and hold close the important things in life. You need to think about who you are and you need to realize that your actions will make this world a better or worse place to live. Mike

Hello Nathan, Wow! Your films look incredible. Your trip to Iceland must have been a real experience. Also a word to those of us in North America, most (if not all) computer DVD players will play PAL DVDs. Mike

Hello Freya, Remember, nothing I'm about to write is meant to offend, just to enlighten. I can see that we disagree on a few points and that's OK too, it's all part of life. Freya, I have to make an observation about your copyright information. It reads like you have read a few books on copyright and while some of what you say is "in the ball park", I believe that it could easily be misunderstood by anyone who didn't have a general knowledge of copyright law. Freya, I've lived a few years now and I'd like to think I have some smarts (although my 6th grade math teacher wouldn't agree). You know in the last 15 years I've paid real money to talk to five different copyright lawyers and in general conversations I've spoken to about 30 or 40 professional writers and we all understand copyright law the way I spoke about it in my original post. In several of the points that you made, you are not really disagreeing with what I said, so it's kind of like you are disagreeing just to disagree? I said, "In a nutshell, copyright is proof of ownership." Your quote: "Well not really. If it comes down to the crunch you may well have to prove that you are the creator of the work. Copyright is the right to make copies of the work once you have created it." In my opinion your thought is not really to the point and it gives a bit of information that while in a general sense is correct, it is missing the point. If you sue someone (let's say a magazine publisher) for stealing your work you will "in fact" have to prove to a judge that you are the copyright holder. Your last sentence implies (especially to someone who doesn't know anything about copyright law) that copyright is the right to make copies. Well, if you are the copyright holder you can do ALL KINDS OF THINGS with your work. Making copies is just one of them, and speaking as a person who holds copyright on a great deal of written work, making copies is something I almost never do. Someone pays me to use my work and they print it in their magazine (I guess that's where you get the "making copies" point). Again, I think to those who don't know they would think you meant, "Hey, I can go down to the general store and make photo copies of my work. Freya says that's what copyright is." Can you see my point now? Your quote: "As I understand it there are still places outside of the berne convention where displaying a notice like this is needed to declare that the item is copyright in order for you to be covered by the law. In Berne convention countries the notice is not needed, however, you might as well stick it on to be clear and to protect yourself in other places too! It can't hurt and it may well help you, both inside and outside of the Berne convention as you are making it really clear to people that you consider the work to be your copyright. It makes it hard for people to claim ignorance in the matter!" So, in a general sense you are correct, but If I just wrote the next HARRY POTTER novel, trust me, I'm getting a real lawyer to reregister it with the appropriate government agency I would HIGHLY recommend to any writer that when he sends his work to a magazine he always prints ©your name 2006 on the first page. If you think the work will have a great value, then I would say you MUST reregister (copyright) your work with the appropriate government agency. You would be a fool not to. Your quote: "You mention the "act of copyright" in quotes which makes it sound a little as if copyright is something you do! That seems a little strange to me. Copyright just is, although obviously there is the act of creating the work, and there may well be the act of doing things to protect your copyrights too but copyright in law is just something you automatically have at least within the Berne convention." Yes, you are correct that when you create a written work copyright automatically "exists". However, if you create something that you believe has great value you will need to register your copyright with the appropriate agency (it's different agencies all over the world, check in your country). Because If I ever have to sue someone for stealing my work, can you imagine when the judge asks me, " Now Mr. Ryan can you show me proof that you are the copyright holder?" "Well, your honor, don't you know that it just exists?" Then after everyone in the court room stopped laughing, I would have a big, up hill battle proving that I was the owner. Also, in several of your posts you come across as a person who thinks it is OK to steal or "infringe" on a copyright holders work, which I would think is not what you believe? Mike

Hello Freya, I have to respond to a few things that you have said, but at the same time I hope I don't offend you. I've read many of your posts on this forum and you come off as a bright person with lots of great ideas and information and you sign all your posts "Love Freya" How nice is that? It may be the nicest thing I've seen on the internet. Now, back to the point. First off, let me tell you where I'm coming from. I have been the editor of two magazines and I'm also a freelance writer. Because of this I have had to talk to copyright lawyers and I have had to understand certain aspects of copyright (copyright is fairly complex and by no means am I an expert on the subject), but there are certain concepts that I have had to understand because if I didn't, it could cost me and the publication I was working for money. Having said that let me comment on some things you have said. Your quote: "They most certainly were not. As I've already said. Copyright law and the whole concept of copyright was created to protect the flow of ideas and to stop big companies with greater resources from exploiting the ideas of others. It had an economic component too in that it was hoped that it might provide some financial income for the people creating the ideas to encourage them to make more." Freya, you are slightly correct, I think your statement is actually causing greater misunderstanding for many of the people on this site. In a nutshell, copyright is your proof of ownership. I'm about to make this statement very simple (there's more to it), but when you put this symbol ©Michael Ryan 2006 next to your article you are telling the world (and a judge if it went to court) that the article is your Intellectual Property. The "act" of copyright doesn't generate you any money. As a matter of fact it can cost you money. You make your money by selling the "rights" to your article in whole or aspects of it to a publisher. So, when a publisher buys First North American Serial Rights, he/she is NOT buying your copyright, he/she is buying the right to print your article (and once they print it once, they no longer have the right to print it again, unless you agree to it). So, the writer gets paid from the publisher by the amount they agree to in a CONTRACT that both parties sign. If another magazine prints my article without buying the "rights" to it (or at least getting my permission) they are guilty of "copyright infringement". As any copyright lawyer will tell you "infringement" is just a legal word for yes, you guessed it...STEALING. In the eyes of the law, if I'm the copyright holder and someone takes my work without permission, it's the same as if they took my care, my boat, my wooden dinner table. Your quote: "To put it another way, if the producer or distributor takes your art away from you without any payment and re-edits it and intercuts it with soft porn and advertisement for cars, softdrinks and fastfood, and change it into a comedy, a work that perhaps you spent a number of years working on, then that is the same as if they broke into your house and stole a couch from you? Personally I think not." Freya, if you are the copyright holder and the producer or distributor did those things to your film..all I can say is CA-CHING it's pay day! You would be making my copyright lawyer very, very happy because it would be an easy, short case that would take about half a day in court and he would still have time for nine holes of golf (all on my dime, of course). Mike

Hello All, Here's a few more things to think about. Robert Shapiro (former Clinton administration economist) just gave a speech where he talked about "intellectual Property" and he said that in the U.S. alone that accounts for 5 TRILLION dollars. That's with a T. Also for those who think that stealing "ideas" (in all its forms) are not the same as stealing solid in your hand objects, you should visit this site: www.wipo.int It's the World Intellectual Property Organization which is run by the UN. It manages treaties signed by 183 nations and over 23 treaties that govern Intellectual Property. Here's a little justification for those of you who steal movies off the internet. You can feel a little bit better about yourself because you are small time when you compare it to the state sponsored piracy by...you guessed it...CHINA. They rip off ideas (in all forms) in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Think about that the next time you buy something from Wal-Mart. Mike

Hello All, Wow. I didn?t expect to get this sort of response on a movie business related website. First off, to the vast majority of people who have responded to this post, I?m not your dad or your teacher or a cop...what you think and believe is your choice. I don?t want to get into any kind of verbal war with anyone on this site. But here is a few things you should at least think about. I?m not asking you to believe in what I?m about to say or agree with it...just think about it. The vast majority of ?us? have never had our value system tested. Most of us go to work, watch TV, go out with friends, that sort of stuff. When asked, ?what do you believe in?? most people don?t really know. Not because they are stupid, but because they just never had to think about it. JUSTIFICATION. I would hope that after reading back many of the previous posts, many of you should be able to see the humor in all the ?justifications?. You know you can justify just about anything to yourself if you want. So, from what I have read above, it?s mainly OK to steal from companies that a) we don?t like B) they make too much money c) I wasn?t going to buy the movie anyway, so that?s why it?s OK to steal it (under that logic I should steal a Viper because I wasn?t going to buy one anyway). Unimportant Crime. Another popular thought was that stealing movies was not a very important crime,you know not as bad as murder, so that?s why it?s OK. So what you are saying is that all crime that is not very important is OK from now on. So, who decides what crimes are important and which are not? Then there was the one post where the guy just obeys the laws he thinks are good. Say, there?s some food for thought. From now on, everyone is going to only obey the laws they think are good. Believe it or not, there are lots of places in this world where this is true...trust me, you wouldn?t want to live there (and neither do the people who are there now). One of the best, however, was the person who said it was absurd to compare the theft of a bottle of Coke with stealing a movie off the internet. Because copyright infringement is not stealing. Hmmmm, here? s a thought, next time get some legal advice from a real copyright lawyer, you shouldn?t believe everything you read out of a Cracker Jack box. I have talked to real copyright lawyers. There are lots and lots of copyright holders that have been awarded millions of dollars for the ?theft? of copyrighted material. Last, ethics and morals are a good thing. It?s kind of like the glue that holds our society together, makes it a place where we want to live. I took philosophy once and we had to read Plato?s Republic (everyone above should read it). I can?t remember the exact quote, but Plato described a world in which everyone was ethical, honest and had virtues and morals. The person listening to him said, ?Plato that world that you describe. It sounds fantastic, a place in which I would like to live. But, Plato, I fear the world that you have described does not exist on this earth. Plato turned to the person and said, ?You may be right...but it is the only world in which I can live.? The entertainment industry is made up of lots of workers, most of them are not rich. The more people who rip movies off the internet the more likely it is those people will lose their jobs. Mike

Hello All, First it was the music industry and from what I have noticed in the last few months it has hit the movie business BIG TIME. The downloading of movies off the internet. I can't believe how many people are doing it and don't even have a second thought about it. Like it's just the way it is. My son is 10 and I have taught him that it's theft. Just as if you went into a store and put a bottle of coke under your jacket and walked out without paying. The sad thing is, he is one of the very few kids in his class that doesn't download movies off the internet. Actually it' kind of odd if you don't. He was going to a new release of a movie on friday night (the first night the movie was out at theaters) and his friend called him up and asked him if he wanted to see the movie at his house!! It had already been on the internet for several days. I don't know why it is, but most of the general public do not think of downloading movies as a crime. I've asked people I know that do it, and I tell them...you know it's stealing. They just look at you funny. Hey, is this what it all comes down to? Mike

Hello All, I would like to get your thoughts and opinions the idea of making a homemade Super8 or 8mm movie camera. I was thinking along the lines of a wooden box with a hand crank and maybe a pin hole or the optics out of a real camera. Can this be done, or is it just way too difficult? At this stage I'm not so worried about image quality, but just in the fact that a reasonable image could be captured with such a camera. Thanks, Mike

Thanks, Will Also if anyone has an opinion about this camera or has any experience with it, I would like to hear your thoughts as well. Mike

Hello All, I read somewhere that the Kodak K-100 camera can use single and double perf film, is that true? If that is true, which film works better in this camera? Thanks, Mike

Hello All, I can't believe that BI2 tanked so fast. Maybe Stone just doesn't have it any more. Mike

Hello All, Has anyone used Nikon or other 35mm still camera lens with a c mount adapter on a 16mm camera? Are there any issues I need to know about? How much better is a 10 or 20 year old Nikon lens compared to a 50 year old Kodak lens? Mike

Thank you, Ian. Fantastic information. Mike

Hello Ian, If you are still out there...what do you like and don't like about the K100? How does it compare to other wind up 16mm cameras, or just anything in general you would like to say about the K100. Thanks, Mike

Hello All, Is there a company that stocks old camera parts? I'm looking for a working or non-working motor drive for a Kodak K-100 16mm camera. It's a wind up camera, but I saw an old ad on eBay (from 1956) that Kodak made a motor as an option for the camera. Thanks for you help, Mike

Thanks Stephen for pointing that out to me. I've just spent a fair bit of time reading all the threads about Ultra 16. So, my post can be summed up in a few words. ONE WHIP ONE DEAD HORSE Thanks, Mike

Thanks Adam, for the information. That helps me out. If anyone is interested here is a website that talks about ULTRA 16. www.cameraspro.com/ultra16cameraspro.html If anyone would like to add their thoughts on this format, I would like to hear them. Thanks, Mike

Hello All, I just purchased a 16mm camera that has been converted to ULTRA 16. (the film gate and viewfinder have been converted to an aspect ratio of 1.80:1.) If I put a 2x anamorphic lens on the camera, what will that give me? I just can't get my mind around the end result. Would it be squeezing a 2.66:1 image into a 1.80:1 frame? (say, I just confused myself even more). If anyone can clear this up for me, that would be great. It's not for any specific project (yet), I just wanted to think about what this would give me, and would there be any reason or benefit that I would use this for. Thanks for your help. Mike

Hello All, This is a great thread, very interesting. I just want to clear up a few comments (from several of the posts above) that are not exactly correct (close, but no cigar). At the time Ben Crowe was shooting THE MAN WHO MET HIMSELF Kodak's Vision2 200T and 500T or 64T were not available in the market place. Mr. Crowe picked Kodachrome because he really liked the way it captured the London sky in winter and the colors of London in general. Budget was a very big factor. Kodachrome in England could be purchased with processing included and that worked very well into Mr. Crowe's very limited budget for film. Mr. Crowe screened all of his film from THE MAN WHO MET HIMSELF on his bathroom wall mainly because it was the largest blank wall in his house. The walls in his bathroom are painted a cream color. So, after many months of looking at all of this footage on his bathroom wall, he now liked the slight cream color tint it gave to all of his shots. So, he wasn't trying to make his final footage appear as if it were projected onto a bathroom wall. It was the fact that he liked the cream colored tint (All of this cream colored tint was added in Final Cut Pro). Ben Crowe would have been happy to screen his film at Cannes by projecting it from a Super 8 projector (he did this at a few places in London), but the Cannes Film Festival would only consider the short in a few different formats. Ben decided that his best option was to have it transfered from DVcam up to DigiBeta. So, it was screened from a DigiBeta master at Cannes. (This DigiBeta transfer caused Ben no end of stress as he had to come up with the money in a very short time frame.) Ben Crowe felt THE MAN WHO MET HIMSELF could only have been shot in film. He felt the only color film for his short was Kodachrome. He liked Kodachrome so much, that I believe if the other films (200T, 500T, 64T) had been available he still would have picked the film he did. Very few people at Cannes knew that THE MAN WHO MET HIMSELF was shot on Super 8. In fact, most people that spoke to Ben afterwards thought it was 16mm. I have viewed THE MAN WHO MET HIMSELF on DVD and it does look very good. It has a very professional quality about it (and it's also a very well made short film). Mike

Hello All, OK, so I'm biased, but I just wanted to give Chris big kudos (in a public forum) for bringing SUPER 8 TODAY out into the filmmaking world. It just goes to show you how big the wave is for Super 8 filmmaking and how many young, old, student filmmakers are getting into this format. If you haven't put your money down for this great read, you should do so now. SUPER 8 TODAY is HOT, BABY, HOT!!!! ....and Chris, you are the man! You are doing big things for Super 8 and you are FEARLESS, BABY, FEARLESS!!!! Mike

Hello All, Thank you for all your answers. I wouldn't want to print the name of the lab as I don't know why the 200T looks this bad (it may be something that I'm doing wrong). So, I really don't want to place any blame incorrectly. Unfortunately, I don't have the film with me (it's at the telecine company). I wish I had the ability to upload the images so you guys could take a look, but not for now at least. Since the roll was a "test" roll I shot a variety of scenes. I shot indoor close ups of a fruit bowl (lit by sunlight, no other type of light used or present). I had a medium shot of a F86 Sabre Jet (outside) on the ground with close ups of the canopy. Also medium shots of a Sherman tank. Indoor or outdoor, the scenes look very grainy and there seems to be a milky haze over the entire shot and overexposed. The blue sky looks almost completely washed out (although the jest has quite a bit of good detail, you can see the rivets, small numbers on the tail, good shadow detail in the 50 caliber gun holes. So, if I read you guys correctly, a poor transfer can show too much grain? I know it's not the fault of the film, because I've seen some really excellent results with 200T. It's just a little bit frustrating trying to get those same fantastic results. Mike

Hello All, I had viewed some examples of 200T and was very impressed. I shot some 200T with a Bolex I had sent it away to be develped and was shocked when the 200T was telecined. It looked bad. Lots of grain and a bit out of focus. I decided it was the fault of the camera, so I shot another roll of 200T with a Canon 814XLS (a camera I know that is in good working order). I sent the film to the same lab and when I saw the results (telecine). It looked almost as bad as the first roll. The image is has a great deal of grain. These are all outside shots with correct exposure. Along with the grain, the image looks farily overexposed. I know the camera is OK, so I'm wondering can the lab be doing something to make the 200T look so grainy and overexposed? Can anyone recommend a lab that can correctly process 200T? Thanks, Mike

Hello, No. Except for the obvious, that there will be no sound recorded. Mike

Hello All, As David Mullen has pointed out, it's really impossible to pick the "best" movie or "best cinematographer", but you can pick films and cinematographers that belong in a seperate catagory in film history. Conrad Hall is one of those cinematographers that has left his mark and is surely one of the very few that can be called, "the best of the best". Widescreen cinematography is really an art form that, in my opnion, is handled very poorly, even in recent films that are shot with anamorphic lens. Among other talents Hall was really a master of using that 2.35:1 aspect ratio. Perhaps as well or better than any other cinematographer. You should do yourself a big favor and watch THE PROFESSIONALS. Expertly directed by Richard Brooks and superbly acted by Lee Marvin, Burt Lancaster, Robert Ryan and Woody Strode, it is a film that is a Hall widescreen masterpiece (he was nominated for an Oscar for his work in this film). Stunning vistas, great framing of the actors and check out the colors on the stone walls in those canyon shots!!!! Another great widescreen film by Hall is HELL IN THE PACIFIC. Really outstanding. I would strongly recommmend both films for anyone interested in 2.35:1 filmmaking. In these films it is more than obvious that his framing was for the big screen in a motion picture theater. There will never be another like Conrad Hall. Mike

Hello All, William Fraker is one of the best. Sometimes a person is great because their entire body of work (which is the case with Fraker)is great, however, Fraker's greatness can be summed up in one film: BULLITT. Wow, the cinematography is something to be admired. Perhaps the best car chase sequence in movie history. Wonderfully shot. I have also read that Fraker did a lot of work on the original OUTER LIMITS. Mike