mark leuchter

I really enjoyed the film, David. It was so different from the work of yours I've seen in the past, but consistent with that work insofar as your choices served the story at every turn. I saw it here in Boston on an AMC screen and did not find any problems with color or sharpness with the print. It was a great moviegoing experience on every level. Of course, it was also cool to see Morpheus spell stuff. ;-) Mark

You know the joke, Matt...what do coffee and Clapton have in common? They both need cream. Though I liked him with Blind Faith and Derek&The Dominos. There's an excellent documentary on Ton Dowd, the recording engineer/producer who worked with Clapton (in Cream and D&TD) and many other legendary names. It's beautifully put together and very enjoyable to watch. The colors on the new Cream DVD are pretty nice and saturated in some places, but this is, I suppose, because of dramatic stage lighting. My guess would be that 7218 was used, as I can't imagine the practical use of 35mm cameras in the concert environment where mobility and immediacy appear to be key.

Folks, THIS is an awesome example of music and image working together. The cameras really capture the spontaneous dimensions of the music and the imagery heightens the excitement. I would love to know the technical specs if anybody is privy to that info. And here's a neat little tidbit -- on the second DVD, in the middle of Clapton's solo on "White Room", there's a shot of the audience dancing, though ONE guy in the audience, shrouded a bit in shadow, is standing still. It's Tim Burton. Awesome. Mark

This is a Canon 12-120 zoom. I don't know a thing about it. Is it a quality lens on par with the more well known Canons (i.e., the 8-64 or 7-63)? I imagine that it doesn't cover S-16, would I be right?

John, I imagine that the contrast and saturation features of the Vision 2 stocks will be consistent with this new 50D stock, but what sort of distinction will we see in terms of sharpness and grain structure, in comparison with 7245? Will the new Vision 2 50D replace 7212 as the "sharpest" available stock?

I'm going to be putting a new but untested lens of mine on a lens projector. In the past, I've done this to get a sense of coverage and contrast, but I am this time interested in determining relative sharpness and resolution. What should I be looking for on the resulting image to help me assess these factors? Mark

Does anybody have information about where I might be able to obtain on-board batteries for the ACL? I've seen them before, both from old ads for the camera and as custom-made items, and the idea of a self-contained compact unit replete with its own power supply is very appealing. Mark

Hi folks, Does anybody have experience with the titular zoom lens? I would greatly appreciate any comments, criticisms, or comparisons. Mark

I'm glad Kubrick decided to make it a hedge maze instead of animals. Kubrick's film is intensely psychological and he did research intro Freud, Bettleheim, and others psychoanalytical theorists before making the film. The hedge maze becomes a metaphor for the mind, and Danny's ability to escape it signals his move into the next stage of psychological development (whereas Jack is trapped in the maze of his own relapse). Mark

Nathan, I can see how the micron measurement bend of the film would factor into focus calculations for the A-Minma, but if the Eclair ACL is using a pressure plate, wouldn't the film's nature bending be obviated anyway? In other words, while the film's bend works FOR the A-Minima, would not the pressure plate design of the ACL simply neutralize it? Mark

Hi all, How much would it typically run to recoat the rear element of a lens? The lens in question is a Zeiss 9.5 T1.3 Mk 1. Any speculations or more precise responses would be highly appreciated. Mark

Does anybody know what part of the zoom range on the Cooke 9-50 will cover S-16? Mark

Ah, a photo with so many great and talented minds in one room. It's very impressive to us screenwriter/directors who secretly want to be DPs. And I just have to say...Allen Daviau is one of the most generous, friendly people I've met in this field. He's like so many people on this board -- genuinely interested in sharing ideas, answering questions, imparting knowledge. A great guy with a really kind, gentle sense of humor and spirit. And his work is inspiring. Mark

Is anybody familiar with an f1.6 lens by Taylor Hobson called the "Monital", with a zoom range from 8-26? Is it crap or decent? Mark

Can anybody suggest or does anyone known on an alternative to the Optex conversions of zoom lenses to Super-16? Not only are they super expensive, but I've been told that the additional optical elements decrease the optical quality of the lens quite noticeably. One person has told me this is not the case, the but general consensus is that an Optex conversion of, say, a Cooke 9-50 into a 10.6-60 does not have nearly the same sharpness as the original lens. One of the ACL websites suggests that Les Bosher in the UK can do some magic work on a lens, converting it to S-16 and retaining the optical quality. How would this be done? I have a Kinor 10-100 (that I haven't tested, but I'm told it's very sharp) and a Cooke 9-50 in pristine condition. I'd love to have one of these adapted to S-16 if the optical quality can remain fairly consistent... Mark

Hi all, Some guy had reposted an ad for an S-16 Aaton LTR from a few months ago, and he's "selling" it for, of course, a couple hundred bucks. Obviously a scam. But I figured, what the heck, have some fun. I've done "test" email queries before to see if someone was a scam artist, but I decided to ask the grandaddy of all "how much of an idiot scam artist are you?" question: did the camera come with 3 or 4 photon torpedo hyperdrives. His reply: "This include 4 photon torpedo hyperdrive. Please fell free to reply me with any questions." Ah, classic. Somewhere in a galaxy far, far away, Scotty and Han Solo are laughing. Mark

Folks...check out this article I wrote on the current discussion: http://detroit.jewish.com/modules.php?name...=print&sid=1323 Mark

Very interesting for me to read these very articulate and well-informed meditations on the film, dogma, religion, spirituality, etc. Cinematographers, it seems, are quite well prepared to engage in critical evaluation of Biblical materials from the scholarly, academic perspective. If only my academic peers were as handy with f-stops. Here's something to consider -- St. Paul mentions the Risen Christ many times. But he never ONCE mentions the Resurrection. Not once. Yet the Resurrection is at the heart of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). Pauls' writings are generally dated to BEFORE the writing of the Gosepl texts. Discuss. Mark Leuchter Assistant Professor of Bible (Hebrew College; Newton MA) Visiting Professor of Religiousd Studies (Northeastern Univ.; Boston MA)

Nathan, I think the ACL also takes the film emulsion out. Every time I've used a "normal" emulsion-in roll, the flim has to "flip" as it goes into the feed chamber leading to the threading gears.

>>I forgot to mention that the 200' A-Minima loads fit the Eclair ACL perfectly. Mike, I was told by people on the ACL discussion group that the A-Minima loads need to be removed from the plastic flanges before being loaded into the ACL mags. Is that the case, or can I put them into the ACL mag as-is without removing the film roll from the plastic "spool" geared for the A-Minima mag? Mark

How does the image quality of the Zeiss 10-100 T* compare with that of the Zeiss 10-100 T2 Mk 2? Is the difference primarily one of speed as opposed to sharpness?

If I had that kind of money, I'd put away half of it and put the other half into actually making an indie feature. But that's just me.

Thanks for the feedback...I will look for your film, Troy, and check out how the Zeiss 12-120 performed. What about the sort-of older Zeiss 10-100 T 3? I know that the oldest ones aren't so terrific, but I've read that the "multicoated" ones are considerably better. How do they compare with the 10-100 mk 2?

I'd like to add something to this discussion, as I hold both US and Canadian citizenship, was brought up in the US but spent the last 10 years -- my adult life (I'm 32) -- in Canada. I was a researcher on a documentary film aired on the CBC/A&E Television/Channel 4 in the UK...it was entitled "Hollywoodism: Jews, Movies and the American Dream". The filmmakers made a good case for the debt owed to the Hollywood machine for transforming how movies were made. Before Hollywood, cinema was essentially a novelty (though of course there were artistic visionaries in other countries, especially France). Many of the films made in the pre-Hollywood era were racist, anti-immigrant, anti-Semitic, "manifest-destiny" style propaganda pieces. The crowning achievement of the pre-Hollywood cinematic culture was Griffith's "Birth of A Nation", which glorified the birth of the Ku Klux Klan. Filmmaking was centered in New York and guarded by the Edison "trust"...wealthy white anglo-saxon men who would not allow anybody else to make movies. Hollywood was founded by immigrants -- mostly Jewish European immigrants -- who fled the Edison trust to make their films. They had an image of America that perhaps didn't exist in reality...an immigrant's dream. But they made it exist in the films they produced, and in doing so, they tapped into some psychological and mythic pulse that appealed to many diverse audiences. And though few people would call L. B. Mayer or Jack Warner artists, they oversaw the development of an artform. Filmmaking evolved as a high art form in large part because of the creative doors opened up by Hollywood. There are wonderful films made in Canada, India, France, the UK, Sweden, Germany, and other countries. They seem to me to define themselves by going against the grain of Hollywood movies. I often think this is good, because the typical big Hollywood production has grown a little sterile and formulaic. But, by consciously going against the Hollywood typology, these films automatically limit their appeal to broad audiences. Everyone on this discussion board is an artist, a craftsman, or an appreciator of the art and craft of filmmaking. Most audiences are not. The typical viewer...be they American, British, or Sri Lankan...look to film for different things than most of us do on this board. Entertainment, escape, wish fulfillment or fantasy, etc. These are legitimate desires, and I am CERTAIN that we out here on the discussion board often feel those same desires. The films I saw (and loved) that were produced in Canada addressed different needs, interests, and audiences. They were less commercial because they aspired to art over entertainment. Most Hollywood films may aspire to art, but put entertainment first, and rightly so -- they are business ventures. But this means that artistic aspiration must take a back seat to commercial concerns. Most Canadians wanted, in my experience, to be entertained more than be challeneged emotionally or intellectually. Ergo the success of Hollywood films in Canada. It is not that Hollywood hijacked anything. Hollywood films serve different needs and address different interests -- human needs and interests, not strictly American ones. The great works of Bergman, Antonioni, Fellini, Herzog, Loach, Greenaway, and countless others serve DIFFERENT human needs and interests...ones that tend to emerge more infrequently, demographically speaking. But let us not forget that Hollywood movies, with their technical innovations, budgets, and early creative talents, helped open the door for what these great artists accomplished and continue to accomplish. And let us not forget that some of the greatest moments in cinema history were created in Hollywood, moments that move us to tears and that rouse our spirits, regardless of the countries in which we live. Mark p.s. My favorite movie is a three way tie: Dr. Strangelove/The Third Man/Monty Python & The Holy Grail. 2/3rds of my favorites are British, and the other 1/3rd was made by an American who was living in England and who stayed there until he met his end.