Mike Welle

Thank you for your reply. I just wanted to clarify that Ron Dexter said the lens changes zoom speed throughout its range, not lens stop. I own an Eclair ACL. Nikon to TS adapters are manufactured by George Zorzoli as well as Les Bosher. With the addition of this adapter, there would be no modification needed to be made to the lens mount if I purchased the Nikon 50-300mm ED. It is also much more readily available on Ebay than the Canon 50-300 FD. So, I must admit that I envy you--especially since this lens is put on Abel Cine's list of recommended Super-16 lenses and the Nikon is not. Alas, what a snob filmmaking makes out of one. "In religion, what damned error, but some sober brow may bless it and approve it with a text hiding the grossness with fair ornament." Bassanio in "Merchant of Venice" Mike Welle Charleston, SC

There used to be a list of recommended lenses put out by Abel Cine Tech. I included an attachment of this list. On the list they recommended the Canon 50-300 T4.5 FD lens. To see this lens, please click here: Canon 50-300 FD However, the Nikon 50-300 T4.5 ED lens is not on this list. I have noticed that several accomplished wildlife cinematographers have mentioned the Nikon lens as part of their lens arsenel. See these links for instance: Arri Package with Nikon 50-300 T4.5 Wildlife Filmmaker Equipment Also, when Optex was in business they mentioned it alongside the Canon 50-300mm. This link concerns the conversion of these lenses to universal lens mounts: Optex Conversions Lastly, at Ron Dexter's website the Canon and Nikon 50-300mm are mentioned. He states that these lenses are "not bad." Also, he says that the Canon changes speed while zooming. Please see this link: Ron Dexter on Nikon and Canon 50-300mm After all of this, my question is why was the Nikon 50-300mm ED lens left off of the Abel CineTech list of lenses? Is the lens somehow less suitable to Super-16 filmmaking than the Canon? Thank you, Mike Welle Charleston, SC

I hope you recover, and I'm sorry for your misfortune. As the Mayor told prince Edward in Richard III: "God bless your grace with health and happy days!" Mike Welle Charleston, SC

Thanks for the vote of confidence, David! Its no wonder we democrats (I assume that's what you are) can't ever get into power. With friends like these...Gosh, that Mike Welle, he shure (get the microphone reference) is a psycho! Ha! Sometimes I almost feel just like a human being! Thanks everyone, its been a blast! There's so many fish in the sea, they only rise up in the swell of smoke like mercury, and they keep you hangin' on... Hey David, now's your chance to get me banned from the list--I've been a bad boy with the standard leader. By the way, I voted for that lefty Joe Lieberman in 2000 and that lefty John Edwards--gosh they make Lenin look like Adolf Hitler! I'm such a leftist. Clinton rocks!!! It is no mean happiness to be seated in the mean. Hillary '08, actually I'd rather have Gore, but beggars can't be choosy. She did after all, vote for the war and so did Lieberman, and Edwards and Kerry! Gotta represent the constituency and not vote our conscience. Oh, wait, I'm shooting down the party I stand for! Mike Welle has no sense of humor because he is unable to understand black humor that gets misinterpreted by the barbarous multitude who twist its meaning into describing the benefits of global warming. Up is down, black is white, right is wrong, Clean Air Act=Pollution, we do not tortue=we do torture, 800 signing statements means Bush can ignore laws, Bush is all powerful, Cheney has his hand up his puppet. David, to quote, Jake LaMatto in Raging Bull. Honey, let's be friends! Mike Welle

Hello my Jedi Geek, Having fun with your lightsaber underneath the covers? That's sweet my intellectual friend because if you think I have Bush Derangement Syndrome--maybe I'll borrow a little from Dick Cheney and be kind enough to tell you to "Go Fug Yourself."

In the movie, Al Gore mentioned how millions of people will be dying when the waters flood into the coasts. Half of Florida will be covered if it continues at this trend, as well as California and the West Coast. The least Bush could have done was to sign onto the Kyoto Treaty, but instead he gives tax breaks to people who buy Hummers. Believe me fellas, there is no benefit whatsoever to millions of people dying, and when one of you are laying in your grave, I hope your ghost finds some sense of humor in the worms that are gnawing your eyeballs out and playing pinochle on your snout. After all, you can find some benefits to global warming (better known as Chlamydia--I mean Climateia, as Bill Maher says). Certainly, the war on terror is far more important than this "debatable" issue. While were at it, colleagues, why don't we debate the pros and cons of Nazism, murder and, I don't know rape--after all we can all sit by and rape mother earth and debate the benefits of doing so. Sometimes I wonder whether you folks are human beings. By the way, I would wager that none of this would be happening if all of those idiots hadn't voted for Ralph Nader in 2000. We know for a fact that Al Gore would have been elected if he hadn't run. New Hampshire was the state that would have given him more electoral votes and if you would have added Nader's votes onto Gore's it would have put him over the top. So, the next time an ultra-liberal Che Guerva type wants to say he loves America--remember who put George W. Bush in power--that Occam's Razor named Ralph Nader who shall ever have destroyed his precious reputation as consumer advocate and transformed it into megalomanic/extremist#1. Proud of yourself Bill Murray, Susan Saranon, Tim Robbins, Bill Maher, and Jeneane Garofolo? I will never, ever, ever vote for a Republican in my life. It's a two party system and democrats all the way. Here is a link to my site: www.democrats.com Yes, I know, now you all come by and say there is no difference between democrats and Republicans or very little. You say the democrats are spineless. I hear that from Lou Dobbs every night--"there are abuses on both sides." What he conveniently "forgets" to mention is that 95 percent of the abuses are performed by the Repubs and 5 percent by the Dems. He keeps his fat little job, doesn't rock the boat, and feels his conscience numb like cauterized flesh. Thus, language makes it seem like a 50/50 deal, and thus the native hue of resolution is sickled o'er with the pale cast of equivocation...or lack of thought. The fact of the matter is if Al Gore had been President--as he should be we wouldn't be in this horrible, hellish mess right now. If I could flip back the pages of time and right that wrong I would. Bush stole Florida and is just a horrible, horrible man: For who shall go about to cozen fortune and be honourable Without the stamp of merit? Let none presume to wear an undeserved dignity Oh that estates, decrees and offices Were not derived corruptly and that clear honour Were purchased by the merit of the wearer How many then should cover that stand bear? How many be commanded that command? How much low peasantry would then be gleaned From the true stamp of honour and how much honour Picked from the chaff and ruin of the times To be new varnished. By the way dudes, Bush probably stole Ohio in 2004. So enjoy your president while you can my lovely fools, and when the dinner bell rings for John McCain instead of Hillary in 2008, you can be sure as hell that the devil will be laughing as he melts the skies. What a lovely "moderate!" Cheers Mike Welle

Just to clarify, global warming is not a debatable issue but honest to badness truth--it is actually occuring. People who deny there is global warming are denying the truth--that is why the movie is called "An Inconvenient Truth." People who are on the side of "global warming is not occuring, or is a myth" are flat out, wrong. If you want proof, go see the movie. Mike Welle

This might help if you can't find the adapter: http://www.longvalleyequip.com/adapter.php Mike Welle

I don't see a huge problem. But if it is a concern you can either solve the problem practically or ideally. Practically costs nothing. For the time being, simply stop the lens down and don't worry about it. Ideally, when the time and funds are present, you could investigate the flange focal depth to ground glass vs. gate (you may have already done this). If this is possibly the issue and, there is any discrepancy, depth of focus could be an issue--especially given the fact that you are using a somewhat extreme wide angle lens (8mm) at a wide open setting T2.1. I've had problems in the past with my Optar Illumina 8mm T1.3 because the lens was wide open and the flange focal depth/ground glass distance of my camera was set incorrectly. I didn't have major problems with 12mm, 16mm, 25mm or 50mm because, as you know, depth of focus becomes less critical at these focal lengths. And once these lenses were stopped down even a little, depth of field overcomes the problem. I don't use any ND when I'm filming (but I plan to in the future when I get around to it)--so that may account for middling T-stops. The 9.5mm and 8mm really test the optical setup of the camera, especially when wide open. Of course, didn't you say in an earlier post that your camera was set up perfectly in terms of flange focal depth? All the best, Mike Welle

No. I said it before and I'll say it again, find me one well-known news source (I mean a household name like CNN, Time, Newsweek, and/or The New York Times) that supports these claims (the carbon dating one and the Clinton/Halliburton one). The ones you gave me have no credibility. Secondly, Bill O'Reilly claims to be a registered independent. He hides under this mask to give himself reputability. In truth, he is a disgusting Republican. Let me ask you this, if you will answer me honestly: Who did you vote for, for president in 2000 and 2004. If the answer is George W. Bush, I would say you are not an independent since you registered votes for a Republican. But why should I even trust a damn thing you have to say? You lie about the situation in Iraq. You're an idiot about Clinton and carbon dating. Concerning the articles you linked to the credibility never stood because they were completely false to begin with. By the way that is so trite about the democrats doing a pretty lousy job countering the Republicans--they are in the minority--of course they are going to have difficulty fighting back when they have less representation. That's right, they're all politicians--and politicians are all just blowing in the wind--how insightful--where do I sign up to hear more of your keen insights into politics? Its so nice to equivocate. There's no difference between Anne Coulter and Michael Moore they are just two sides of the same political coin. I really fear for this country and the total show of ignorance that people like you show. Thirty years from now, and mark my words (I saw Al Gore's film) when people like you who are oblivious to global warming (I assume that because you question carbon dating)--when people like you are wondering why New York and Los Angeles are flooded with water and saying that the gays are at fault and this is God's wrath for gays and that it has nothing to do with carbon dioxide emmisions from giant SUVs and gas guzzling cars--think back (if your short term memory provides)--think back to what I said today--and you shall see the truth. That's all I have to say about this. If you want to win this stupid little debate, chalk up a meaningless point on your materialistic blackboard. O remember this another day, when it shall split your very heart with sorrow, and say poor Michael was a prophet. Thus doth he force the swords of wicked men to turn their own points on their masters bosoms. In the words of Socrates, there is only one good knowledge and one evil ignorance. I will not say another word to you about this matter. Mike Welle

Those are some pretty unbiased news sources you've got there, champ. Want to show us some of that information backed up by a credible news source other than a ultra-right wing website with cheesy pictures of large breasted Republican women, books about the 101 most dangerous academics in America, and a very provocative question: Did Anne (Coulter) go too far? Now you're going to start whining/lying about the fact that the website is very credible, blah, blah, blah. Or maybe you'll give me a little "fair and balanced" Fox news. Why don't you open your eyes and pull your head out of your ass? Gosh, those sure look like the kind of websites that your average joe looks at. Let me see how many Pulitzers those have won: http://www.frontpagemag.com/ http://www.specialtyinterests.net/ As far as who is really ignorant it is obviously you. None of what you said is true, just more Republican lies. And before you go off blaming global warming on the gays, why don't you take a good hard look at a credible news source (CNN, New York Times) and I'll consider the plausibility. Now watch, you'll go off about the New York Times--and the liberal media. Have fun! Mike Welle

Oh my Gosh. I am laughing so hard at your total show of ignorance, that I'm not sure if I'm laughing or crying. To paraphrase Shakespeare, there may as well be amity and life between snow and fire as truth and your statements. I would absolutely love to see where you are getting this information about Clinton and no bid contracts but I'm sure you're pulling it out of your rear end, and scientists saying carbon dating is flawed...that is beautiful. You really should be working for the Bush administration. I'm done here. If I continue to waste my time arguing with you more whack jobs will come along with more whacky and downright dangerous claims. God, if we don't get a democrat in the oval office I'm seriously worried what will happen in thirty years. I guarantee (with 95 percent accuracy), that statement will cause nutjobs to respond. Or maybe they won't because I just said they would and they want to prove me wrong for saying they would. Or maybe they want to prove me wrong for saying I said they would respond, and then I said they would'nt respond so maybe they will respond. Anyway, have fun living in that little bubble of yours. Enjoy the comic, if you understand my plight: http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=18944 All the best, Mike Welle

That's an interesting perspective. It appears you are denying or, in the very least, casting doubt on the truthfulness of all of the facts I stated about Iraq (you know, those pesky little truths about all these soldiers and Iraqi citizens dying, the numerous Iraqis tortured and so many of those billions of dollars being wasted on no bid contracts much of which are going to Halliburton.) And if I'm understanding correctly you believe that because your friend served in the military and fought in Iraq, and was "there" and told you things are going fairly well, that his account simply makes all of those "facts" not true or questionable. How quaint. That's similar to the way a child might say they believe in Santa Clause because their friend told them he saw cookie crumbs, and an empty glass of milk in front of their family's tree on Christmas morning. Your statement is like saying the earth is 4,000 years old because you read it in the Bible when the carbon dating of the oldest rocks indicates that it's 4.5 billion years old. It's very much like a former oil lobbyist and former white house official who deleted information on a global warming report despite the fact that it came from reliable scientific research on the matter. Wouldn't it be great if we could create our own reality?: http://www.slowpokecomics.com/strips/reality.gif All the best, Mike Welle

And if you believe that I have a bridge to sell you. Obviously the education system in our country has failed when we have such brilliant keen insights as the war in Iraq is going well. Hello? Abu Ghraib? Hello? 2,500+ US dead. 100,000+ Iraqis dead. No WMDs. $87 billion. What world are you from? I question your intelligence and the intelligence of your friend. Or is this all just spin, put out by you on behalf of Karl Rove? Get out of my country! Mike Welle

First of all I can't believe you are able to pull the noise out so efficiently. Well done, nice use of the software! I noticed that the version 2.0 sound soap one had less camera noise in it than the version 1.0 recording. It must be impossible to completely remove the noise and keep the quality of your voice. The version 1.0 sound retained the resonance of your voice but also kept the camera sound (albeit, very slightly). I liked your demo so much that I went to the SoundSoap website and watched their flash video where they demonstrate how to use the audio program. You might be interested in this if you haven't tried it already. Thank you Tim, Mike Welle