James Baker

1) What kind of output are you needing? Web and video? 8x10 Inkjet prints? Or large exhibition LightJet or Inkjet prints? 2) What size film format? 35mm? 120? 4x5? I"m guessing 35mm and only web and video, or 8x10 or maybe 11x14 prints since you mentioned "under $400 or so." If that's the case, your best bet is a Nikon Coolscan V. Nikon also offer the 5000 and 9000 models for more expense (the difference being the 5000 is faster with autofeed options and the 9000 scans film up to 6x9 cm.) Do not bother with a flatbed (unless you are doing only web work or small prints.) You are really much, much better off with a dedicated CCD film scanner. I say this realizing quality is subjective (I've been doing this for a long time and was trained on a $60,000 PMT drum scanner, and so I imagine I'm very spoiled.) However, the Nikon Coolscan series do a decent job at a very reasonable cost. You'll get big enough files for larger output but the limiting factor on consumer scanners is the dynamic range. I also feel that the time you're going to spend scanning shouldn't go to waste on poor scans, so I'd get the best you can afford. If you ever need larger files for exhibition work you can always get high quality drum scans done at a service bureau. Nikon's software is OS X ready (the Coolscan V is USB 2 only; no FW) But I personally dislike Nikon's software and would recommend buying SilverFast Ai instead. SilverFast has a lot more flexibility in producing more manageable scans for stretching around in PS. Whew, that was a bit long-winded. Sorry.....

It's not a camera for shoulder mounting that's for sure. I used one for some time and bought some of that memory foam (the material in TemperPedic mattresses) which I placed under the flat part for my shoulder. But it's still not a perfect solution. I don't think the camera was designed for shoulder use (unlike the Eclair, which is one of the best, IMHO.) But the memory foam did conform to the shoulder and the camera. You might want to try it.....

FWIW, the selection process is more involved than simply trying to select the "best" candidates in respect to their creative potential. A lot of it has to do with a "proper fit" and how much the applicant might gain from a particular program. Almost all candidates are qualified and certainly one or two sometimes stand out above the rest. But a lot of it has to do with how the incoming class will fit together as a whole. And each year there is a new crop of incoming students. You could easily be well qualified and a very creative individual but the faculty is looking at both the trees and the forest. Believe me, it's not an easy process to select through a large group of good applicants, each of them with promise and merit, and come up with the small number that makes up the incoming class. And faculty will argue with each other over which candidates to pick, sometimes with their own egos on the line. Never take it personally. But here's a tip: take the time to personally connect with a faculty you would like to work with and at a school you would like to attend. Visit, have lunch, show them your work and talk about your thoughts, ideas, and ambitions. Follow up on the meeting with a call or another visit. Let them get to know who you are. Then when you apply, they will argue in favor of your application.

I'm looking for the Eclair ACL II "horizontal, anatomical, phenolic" handgrip (not the top handle.) I'm not sure of it's official name. If you have one you want to part with or know where I can get one......

I think you've answered it yourself. A bargain is something that's a good value for the money. Something that might not produce what you expect of it and causes you worry is no bargain at all. Personally I would never buy used stock. But then that's just me......

Tim, as I said I think it's really great that you learn as much as you can; that will always be to your advantage. Should you buy the equipment? It doesn't hurt if you have the budget. But if you have to pay someone to use it, why not hire someone skilled and already equipped --and who intimately knows the quirks of their own equipment? I think one of the problems with all this is that our idea of what is high quality changes as we get better with the material. So, an inexpensive recorder with noisy preamps might sound okay --until we hear something that sounds much better. But we've already bought the recorder and now we're stuck with it. Not knowing the real world of audio, we get into that loop of feeling comfortable only with something that we know costs a lot of money but without knowing if it's really what we actually need. So, we buy the expensive recorder. But then end up with noisy mics and eventually it all goes south. Then we buy the most expensive mics but there's some hum that we can't figure out. We get a $500 Rycote. And then we buy new expensive cables. Now there's noise from the boom. So we buy a really expensive carbon fiber pole ---but maybe we should have really just bought some gloves... There are so many variables in achieving great quality audio. It's many, many links in a big chain. A good recorder such as a Sound Devices is a solid "investment" and it will have good resale value, too. You can feel comfortable knowing that it's not a Marantz but accepting that it's not an Aaton, either. But again, there you are with a great recorder. Then what? Which mics? If you can't rent mics, then you are relying only on other's subjective advice (and don't forget my advice is subjective, too!) Mics are expensive (the usable ones for "big screen" quality) and that can make or break things.... Bad sound is bad and good sound is good but what's better than good? It's all somewhat subjective..... I still say keep studying and hire someone for a try out. Even if you have to pay a few hundred bucks for a day, you will learn a lot just watching them. If you bought your own (expensive) equipment you still need to find someone skilled who can use the equipment properly (even improperly holding a boom can render useless audio even with the best of equipment.) I venture to say that anyone whose good with audio should have decent equipment themselves. Sorry for the polemic, but I just would hate to see you spend good money on something that you have to invest a lot of time with in order to use to its fullest capabilities. Unless you're willing to do so (and there's nothing wrong with that.) You'll get plenty advice on what equipment is "good" or "bad." That's easy. And you can search all over the net, there's plenty out there. Buying something just takes money, anybody can buy something. But in the end, you'll never know what **you** really need until you **know** what you really need. And that's the part you'll figure out in time.......

Take a look at this resource: www.24bitfaq.org It should answer all your questions. But, again, the bigger issue is do you personally want to get into this, or let someone else who has already spent the time do it for you? Don't get me wrong, I think it's really great that you take some time to understand audio and learn as much as you can. But there's just so much involved in getting "big screen" audio. Handling the boom, how to cable properly to eliminate noise, knowing the different characteristics of each type and manufacture of microphones, mixing skills, post work, the list goes on and on.... It's going to take a long time to learn by yourself and it's probably the time you really need to write, direct and produce your projects. On the other hand, you can learn a lot by hiring a really experienced person even for just one time and observing how they do it and ask questions. You could also go to your local sound pro shop and ask if someone is willing to give you advice and some hands-on-training in exchange for a couple hundred dollars or so. If you're set on buying a recorder yourself, Sound Devices build high end recorders that won't break the bank (starting at around $2400 for the 702T.) I recommend them but based only on my own experience ---and I have not used Cantars or Devas which are really too expensive to own (unless you are a sound engineer making good money, of course.)

If you're staying in Santa Monica you need to know that it's almost impossible to drive east (to Hollywood and the ArcLight, etc.) in the early evening. That is, anytime from 3 pm to 7-8 pm. Traffic is a nightmare. Close to Santa Monica are the (excellent) cinemas mentioned already. But there's also the new Landmark that opened this summer : http://www.landmarktheatres.com/market/Los...TheLandmark.htm A good source for films, times, places, and reviews is the LA Weekly that comes out each Thursday: http://www.laweekly.com/film+tv/ Plan a bit ahead and the driving won't be too bad; just remember it's the worst from 3 pm to 7-8 pm and heading west to east or south to north......

Unfortunately it's not just the recorder that gets you better quality but, as you probably realize, there's the mics, a mixer, booms, windjammers, cables, blah, blah. It can add up really quickly if you are looking for high end audio, or "big screen quality" as you say. Figure 2k for something like a Sound Devices recorder, 1k for a SD mixer (depending on channels needed) then another 2-3k for mics, 1k for booms/cables, etc.. And then somebody skilled to do sound while you shoot. Which brings me to this: What about hiring an experienced person, who has good equipment, to work with you on important projects? This might end up being less expensive and you will have the added benefit of somebody who really knows sound (and can help in post.) Good equipment sounds better but also requires a lot more skill to make use of that quality. And you might end up finding you don't have the time (or desire) to learn that skill set. Just a suggestion.

Ruairi, Rauiri. Please, you have it all wrong. It's this: "PC users are manly and have terrible haircuts, whereas Mac users smell like cabbage and are good looking." Come on, stop posting such misguided information....

Thanks for the insult to all of us academics who have decided to make a life long commitment to education. Sorry, but I already did my share of digging ditches and getting my fingernails dirty. Why this knee jerk reaction to the academy from those so distant from it in the first place? It's a very right wing response; like saying everything that comes out of Hollywood is only mindless, profit driven garbage...... btw, many, many successful and respected people in film came from my alma mater including this forum's own David Mullen.

Just for the record, "multiple degrees" will not "boost" one's salary. It might make one more competitive for a position, but assistant professor salaries are competitive from university to university with some variations depending on geography. In other words, there is a beginning salary for entering academics which then changes when one gets tenure and becomes an associate. Later salaries are raised when one becomes full. The hiring procedure is fairly transparent with a full public announcement for the job (in other words, you can't easily sneak in the backdoor because you have connections as in other industries.) At all universities and at most community colleges, one must have a terminal degree in their field (a master's degree won't be enough unless that degree is the terminal degree.) But the bigger issue is why do you care about this person? Do I smell a bit of sour grapes? Who are you to say he needs "more life experience" and a "foundation in personal taste?" Let him go his direction and you go yours. Why let it bother you? Do your thing and don't get concerned about what other people are doing. Different strokes for different folks (as Sly Stone would say.) In the end, "higher education" is an industry in itself with its own agendas. Just like the "movie industry." Each with their positive sides and negative sides.

Maybe he's more interested in the theoretical side of things. And yes, maybe he would like to teach. So what? More power to him. Consider that school can be a good thing for some. I did it (and a lot of schooling, too; in three different disciplines) because I also wanted to teach. And now I have a good income and the time to do my own personal work (and the way I want to do it, too)... and I happen to enjoy the academic world. Each to their own, I suppose. To look at him in disgust is a bit harsh. Especially as your intern.

I think the street price when it was still available new was around 2100.00 USD. It was a better choice (IMHO) than the TRV-900 and 950 models. Both have a nice small form factor. The PDX-10 does give you true 16:9 and XLR. The PD-150 was much better in low light but cropped for 16:9. The PDX-10 isn't that great in low light. If 16:9 is important, then the PDX-10 is the choice (or the more recently discontinued 3CCD Panasonics.) But for $1450 I think you might have some better options with newer or current models. Are you dead set on "old school" mini-DV? The Canon HV20 might be a good choice for you and it records not only SD but also HDV. A Beach-Tek will give you XLR. And it's less than 900.00 USD right now.

Film? Video? The dialogue goes on.... Film is film and video is video. Film can cost more. Video can cost less. Good video looks good. Good film looks good. Bad video looks bad. Bad film looks bad. And bad audio makes both look bad. But one thing film might have over video is to help develop a working style. Film makes you stop, listen, think, visualize. You learn to really look. You learn to say no if things aren't quite right. Video has a built-in parachute. When I started using expensive 8x10 reversal sheet film for still photography, I stopped, listened, thought, and visualized a lot more than when using a 35mm handheld camera with 36 frames. That slowing down developed my (still and motion) technique in visualizing and I became specific and particular and calculated. In camera "editing" became a work ethic; editing in post was an enjoyable fine tune rather than an attempt at rebuilding. And that slowing down allowed me to constantly re-think my content. It helped me tremendously. It made me smarter. No matter now if I'm using video, 16mm, 35mm, 120, 4x5, 8x10, etc.. I know it would have been a much longer road for me to get to that point using only digital capture and its obvious convenience. Just my opinion......

Hmmm. Yes. $500 is not expensive really.....same with mics. Try to save up a bit more money and buy something you can use without frustration and won't want to toss out the window. In the end, I think that might be the less expensive route. If it's any consolation, think about what these tools cost 20 years ago.

My sentiments, too. An ACL with French mags and motor change out (and overhaul with the S16 conversion) is a really smart way to go. And there are three Eclair expert repairpersons (that I know of, maybe there's more?) who will keep it running: one in the UK, one in upstate New York, and one in Southern California.

Yes, but isn't this happening in many fields? After all, the world is growing exponentially. It's also more difficult to be a poet, machinist, lawyer, carpenter, doctor, etc.. Global economies have shifted, capitalism and profitability has become more intense, geographic centers have moved, etc., etc.. I think one has to re-invent oneself more these days in order to contend with the changing tide. And it changes always, over time, over history. I went and got the MFA not because I thought it would get me a job working with Hollywood film makers, but because it meant I can teach at the university level. So now I have an income I can count on, and the time and money to subsidize my own work. And my work is certainly shaped by the environment I currently live in. People have always had a need to express themselves. And, yes, in a world where we all sometimes feel less and less autonomous, that desire is perhaps more pronounced although I might argue that it's been this way throughout history. And there are many ways to express oneself; a good job; children; a diary; gardening; making movies; meditating; helping others; etc., etc.. Things certainly have changed since the "old days." But everything is always in a state of flux. One has to work through and around certain obstacles. But those obstacles were always there, in some shape or form. Today, they just have a different appearance.

The best part about school for me (MFA, CalArts) was the dialectic and the contacts. It was a luxury to spend that time completely immersed. Worth every minute; an environment that I can never replicate. Yes, for the price I could have bought a new BMW (and a half), but the BMW wouldn't have lasted as long. Go to (a good) school if you want an exchange of ideas and a sea of contacts.

I agree with the gist of what Walter is saying. However, I also sympathize with people just starting out (in any endeavor). When I was a teenager (100 yrs ago) I decided I wanted to make photographs. My real influence was from looking at, and reading about, photographs. But I eventually needed to buy a camera. I labored as to which camera I should buy, etc.. Yes, in the end it didn't matter; only my images (my content, my thinking, etc.) really counted. But nevertheless I was still concerned about which tools I should invest in with my hard-to-come-by money. Later, I went on to get my MFA (CalArts) in an environment where everything was about ideas and not tools. I developed my cerebral and emotional skills with less concern about equipment. However, at the same time, I was also acquiring a complete knowledge in the arena of image making, which included understanding tools. I feel confident about which tools work for me and which won't and why I prefer certain ones over others. However, that took time and a certain sense of confidence. But for those first entering into the fray, it can become overwhelming. Perhaps it's the easy(ier) acquisition of (now) relatively inexpensive devices? Or, the marketing that's used by manufacturers: "You will become an instant film maker with our new HDV-ACHDV-DVCPRO camera." Why study the history of film? Why read literature? Why read philosophy? Unfortunately (and where I agree with Walter), the emphasis (notoriously by the purveyors of the goods) tends to be on the equipment. And, for the young mind that perhaps hasn't yet had the chance to really stretch, this siren's song is sometimes all that is heard. No matter what we say (those of us who have gone through exactly what they are going through), those individuals just getting their feet wet really have to go through all parts of the learning process themselves. But it's nice that folks like Walter are attempting a good influence. I think (hope) it's helpful.

Fran, Your description makes complete sense. I'm really not too savvy about the commercial world. Although I know a few people here who use Industrial Color on location and I know they pay dearly for that service. And I know that I pay dearly for drum scans and LightJet prints from the top studios here in LA. My early RA-4 prints cost a fraction of an equivalent sized LightJet print. Archive/storage logistics are certainly an issue with digital. And then there's the failure factor of drives and basic digital incongruities. To a certain extent, I've had that to contend with it. The raw scan .tiff file needs to be archived, the (huge) layered .psd file needs to be archived, the final .tiff print to enlarger file needs to be archived. Burn backups on DVD. And, of course, still store the analog film file. It gets time consuming and tedious. But what I also find interesting is that it seems commercial work is now expected to go beyond turning in a set of transparencies. It sounds like you are assumed to not only shoot and capture, but to deliver in various outputs, storage devices, and perhaps pre-press .pdf files, etc..(?) I remember when E-6 film processing labs like A&I used to stay open until midnight for overnight turnarounds. And so instead, with digital, you have to labor overnight getting the files done; I see now the expenses piling up with digital shoots.... -James

For me, using film is worth the cost/time/work issue. Not only is it incredibly beautiful with an exquisite tonal range, but the way the grain resolves an image gives it an organic feel and produces its own signature. And, in the end, you have a physical, analog archive. I "still" shoot only reversal film, both 35mm and 120, with an old Leica and a Hasselblad, respectively. I used to work with 4x5 but admit I got lazy having to load holders ;). For exhibitions, I have my film frames drum scanned (on an Aztek PMT drum scanner) and edited in Photoshop, then printed digitally with a LightJet on photographic paper with analog chemistry. It's pretty much the same workflow as motion picture film: shoot, telecine, edit, then print. And with all the advantages of digital editing that glorious look of film. The best of both worlds. Video/digital looks sterile and flat to me. However, in a commercial setting I realize it's really the most cost efficient way to go. At the college where I teach we still start them out in an analog darkroom and then they go on to digital. Film skills are a good thing to have. But as digital has now become ubiquitous I think expectations have become modified; just like MP3 versus CD versus vinyl, LCDs versus CRTs, etc.. I really love film; it's an amazing medium.

**SOLD**

Just a p.s., --John, I stopped in to see George. He wasn't in (he's recovering from a knee operation) but I spoke with his partner(?) repairperson/craftsman. A very nice, knowledgable person and I enjoyed speaking with him. They are going to put together what I'm looking for and, as you said, "get it running perfectly." It was really comfortable in the shop, like something lost in time. It reminded me of Harry Fleenor's Rolleiflex repair shop in Manhattan Beach. Thanks, James

Thanks, John. That was kind of my intuition from the beginning.... There are specifc things I'm looking for, and so I'll be ending up with an Eclair mutt. I certainly am going to see George. I stopped by a few times this past week but the shop was locked up. I need to call him next week and have a visit. And I've heard great things about Bernie, too. Thanks again, James