Patrick Neary

Hi- Try this link for a pdf manual (it uses the wayback machine) http://web.archive.org/web/20050211020515/.../Fries35R_1.pdf if it doesn't work, drop me a line and I can email you the pdf of the manual. It looks like Fries must no longer be in business.

You might have better luck doing the same thing but with all Nikon mount, you'll have an easier time finding wider lenses, 20mm, 15mm, etc.

Hi- Like John Sprung pointed out, you wouldn't have to operate the cam at 2x speed or mess with a bowtie shutter, you just need to move the pin on the cam closer to center to shorten the pull down and increase the dwell. I also wonder if you might need to reshape the cam, it's been awhile now since I had mine in pieces.

I remember a quote in AC (I think it was Ron Garcia about shooting "Twin Peaks") where he said about shooting exteriors on a tv schedule; (something to the effect of) "backlight, fill and boogie" It was one of the most useful things I've ever read in that magazine!

Hi- That's unfortunate because it might be your only realistic option. The lights you mention won't do squat on a sunny day at those distances.

Well then that explains why all my shots of UFOs photographed with regular film never turn out!

OK, prizes go to whoever can provide a comprehensive history and uses of this:

Hi- Here's a good nuts and bolts guide to shooting a film test, although I don't know how many people actually do a wedge spectogram; I know I never have... http://www2.alfonsoparra.com/php/baul/test...esfotos.doc.pdf The idea is to not to shoot a variety of scenes, but to shoot one (rather boring) setup, over and underexposing it, then printing both a one-light and corrected workprint.

Hi- That they do, even the phone cord which would have been a dead giveaway- can't wait to hear how it was done!

Sorry for that off the cuff bit of smart-ass-ness.

Hi- I did something similar awhile back, we had a number of night scenes to shoot on a nice new ballfield (AAA), with great lights (made by Musco). Shooting 5218 at asa 400, the best exposure I could find on the field was 2.8/4 split, but you'll find that even the best lit fields have very spotty levels, and great swaths of the area will fall to 2.0 and well below. Color temp wise we just shot clean and corrected out the minor blue tinge and very minor green spike (these were incredibly clean lights). ASA 50 just won't cut it, even on the best field.

Hi- It will be interesting to hear how they did it- It looks like an impossible shadow, maybe a stand-in (in silhouette) was mimicking the actress?

>About Moonlight Media: Moonlight Media (formerly Firestorm Features), is a media company that specializes in motion picture production & distribution...< ...And all this time I thought you had to actually produce and distribute a motion picture to make such claims, silly me!

Hi- There isn't an adapter for Nikon Lenses, you need to have the mount machined onto the camera by a camera tech, usually to the tune of $1000- $2000. There are pentax screw mount to eyemo mount adapters that slide into the eyemo mount, but they are very difficult, if not impossible, to find.

Here you go, you can buy a roll and find out: http://cgi.ebay.com/16mm-FILM-KODACHROME-B...id=p3286.c0.m14 Although as Charles pointed out, chances are it has shrunken by now to short pitch! If you search around on this forum you'll see at least one reference from one of the lab guys who was pretty adamant that KII was long pitch. Other than a Kodak old-timer, they (the lab folks) are probably the only ones who would remember.

Hi- It seems a pretty safe bet that it was long pitch. I think the old ASC chart you are referencing (I've got the 3rd edition here) lists short pitch as "Camera original intended for release printing" which K_II was not. Then long pitch as "Camera original reversal intended for direct projection" which K-II was. It's funny that Kodak would change 16mm Kodachrome to short pitch before they discontinued it, maybe it simplified production, or they figured no-one was direct projecting 16mm anymore? I've got a circa- early 80's Kodachrome 16mm box here but it doesn't list the pitch anywhere on the packaging the way modern stocks do.

Or telecined on a film chain in 1967 and duped for years after that, come on...

and his nose is on fire!

"Besides that, there's just too much distracting scenery. " !!!! (I think it's just a joke.) ;)

I hate to rain on their parade, but you can adjust the knob like so on that expensive little gizmo to tilt up and down, or... YOU COULD SLIGHTLY BEND YOUR WRIST!!!

Hi (again)- WOW, thank God for the EDIT feature! There is the formula right in front of my face, p164 in my tattered AC manual..... EDIT: But still, curiosity got the best of me and about 5 minutes of searching found this: http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/techn...cal_length.html along with a few "google books" results (on optics and photographic optics) that point out quite clearly that precise determination of the focal length of a compound lens is a bit of a complex issue, certainly more complex than the formula in the AC manual. I wonder why the difference in methods? So again, unless I'm just misunderstanding your method of finding the focal length, respectfully, I wonder if that's why you're getting an odd reading. I assume you're in or near LA, with some of the best camera houses and optical techs within driving distance, why not consult with someone who knows this stuff and can assist? And with some egg on my face, I'll bow out now.....

Hi- How did you test the Horizontal AoV on that camera/lens combo?

Hi- I think you'll find K-II resolution stated at around 63 lpmm, and that's under optimal lab test conditions. To put things in one kind of perspective, I had some 16mm Kodachrome out awhile back and was looking at some frames (a seagull, not Bigfoot) sitting still on a piling, shot with a tripod mounted bolex and switars, and I could see just about everything detail-wise the emulsion had to offer with a 8x loupe. And that was a camera original, shot with a good lens in good light on a tripod of a static subject, not a hand-held, moving subject on a dupe, or dupe of a dupe of what is probably the worst stock ever for duping; kodachrome (or kodachrome-II, if that's what the original was.) Not to be a party pooper, (and not picking on your post, Bill) but it's hard to take too seriously proclamations about the minute details people are finding on that particular film.......

so what's wrong with regular 16?

AHEM! I beg to differ- I'm in the midst of shooting a silent, hand-cranked short for a friend and while the Mitchell is a pure delight, the Eyemo hand cranks wonderfully with that tiny crank! Scroll down on my Flickr page a bit and you can see the Eyemo in action here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/monkeycam/ (by the way, I think everyone should have to sign their posts like Freya, what a happy place this would be!) Love, Patrick :)