Chris Millar

Disposable cams... Maybe it's a location thing - I'm in Aus/NZ. probably more it's specifically my world not coming across them - very good to hear though. (pity however that the medium is being exposed to those crappy little lenses !). I just had 2 rolls of Provia developed and mounted into slides from a recent Japan trip, very fun pulling a Cliff Claven from Cheers and boring friends with 'holiday slide evening'. Used a Konica Hexar, auto-everything, great glass but there were a few out of focus snaps, so next rolls will be shot on my very first camera, a Pentax K-1000 with some spotmatic/M42 lenses. I love how the physical artefact - i.e. the slide - is the very object that was exposed to the image you see. For me personally, that fact was taken for granted before all the digital carry on.

Disposable 35mm cameras - really? I would have said those were about 10 years ago - maybe 5... and I only found them as I was collecting the flash bulbs out of them for a project. Haven't seen them since. Anyway, it's a wee bit off topic... Let alone cine products it's nice to see 120 stills on the list :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

It wasn't an intentional comedic effect pointing at the new reality of her having both an abundance of food and also so many more food options than she would normally? Humour in that she is managing to eat that much in that space of time and that we and perhaps him are saved from actually having to witness it. I get the feeling my mother at least, would see it that way :)

Yip, the first thing they'll do is look for an out... If you're not on the same page you may as well not be insured.

Not much to distinguish octal from base 2, in terms of the underlying concept. Even less for hex in practical terms. Base 10 is the odd one out actually :) Not just memory/architecture/bus width etc. but also also algorithms that are recursive in nature can benefit from 2^n based data structures...

Ditch science, study engineering - specifically, software, electrical or mechatronics which along with those other two throws in mechanical to boot. Much more practical and very transferrable to a career in certain parts of the film industry - nothing to stop you getting involved with other students and making films on the side to keep up the artistic side of it all.

Damn, I want cookies and grapes now ;)

Maxim, you'd do well to at least understand what Phil is pointing out - if even for your own purposes.

The all-pervading safety concern... It is near impossible to argue against a poster of a child asking where his daddy is, with the subtle inference that his father was 'taken' by unsafe work practices. In another technical universe I partake in on occasion the same discussions are happening, with unfortunately the same propensity for knee-jerk and politically profitable solutions. Keep in mind someone is making more money than they would usually as an outcome of it all (the flouro-collar mafia). ...as mentioned, it's impossible to argue against the resultant emotional appeals. For me personally it's about the personal trust of my colleagues - something earned on a one to one basis over time - should a piece of abstract paper that is meant to represent the same in the context of the industry at large really convince anyone otherwise? Even if it should, will it? Of course it's unrealistic to expect to be working with the same people on every job, so maybe it's the best we can do. What it really boils down to is what you have control over >> be honest and critical about your abilities with yourself, and often. Then and only then, do the required hard sell to get your foot in the door etc. - but never cross the line.

If I'm not mistaken Rivas facilitates cement, whereas guillotine is for tape (?). I know tape is used lots in projection, but would have thought cement would be more prevalent in editing because the splice is hidden at the frameline. If so, it really depends on what side of Hollywood you're talking about - unless of course you want to find out how many splices of each kind were made in Hollywood in 2014 full stop. Maybe I've got it wrong...

Is that an Ebony you have there in your pic? Very nice.

I owned a 35mm KEM once, it was shifted between storage and storage until I had to pass it on - wish I had the chance to get it running ... anyhoo, time to get off-topic re. wide 4x5: I used to shoot near to 4x8 by having splitting a dark slide in 8x10" - get two shots per sheet that way - trick is to shift slightly to get central shift again (if it matters for the content) and then not get confused to what sides were exposed so far etc... no reason 2x5 wouldn't be the same. Once I got into larger and larger formats and contact printing I never did it again ... Maybe it's an old idea that you're well aware of - regardless, nice to hear from other LF photographers ;)

If it turns out to be an option keep in mind there are both C-mount and Bolex Bayonet mounts... If you're going to buy one make sure you check ;)

Oh hang on, Just realised I was reading about the process used by my old employer Harry Harrison, in the LOTR films (Key Grip). I wonder if he re-invented it, or was aware ... Either way, it's nice to see in-camera and classic processes used today :)

Schüftan process, just read about it - very clever ;) Although the double exposure is the classic method that springs to mind, it'd be interesting to know the historical context, maybe using mirrors was more in the collective mindset in 1932. Keeping in mine 'classic' is a relative term (at least the inverted commas classic that is). My effects history knowledge in terms of timelines sure is lacking. ...oh and when I say mirrors I really mean the lake surface in this example

Could have been walking on a structure that was at a height to be out of shot for the real actor, but at such a height that the bottom of it was at the same height as the reflected rivers edge.

Just heard this myself. Amazing man huh. Looks like he lived his life to the fullest, and kept a very active awareness of the world around him. Although his passing is sad, there is a lot to celebrate. RIP dude, nice one ;) An inspiration.

Strange as it is I kind of miss you bagging on about him all the time (well maybe half the time). Let's give it a try. From a report titled 'Transforming the Defense Industrial Base - a Roadmap' by the US Department of Defence - they quote what appears to be Jim in appendix B - page 28: "Athletes who were performing knew that our products gave them a competitive advantage, that same philosophy transcended into our work with military, and just as when I see Lance Armstrong cranking through the Alps, demonstrating time and time again why we’re number one, I get the same if not more of a high when I hear of our guys kicking somebody’s butt overseas wearing our product… and if we can do more for the military, more for the government, I’m going to be a number one fan of doing that…" And then this: "Evidence has emerged that sports brand Oakley continued to sponsor disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong for years after its CEO discovered the former Tour de France legend was a drug cheat." http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-02/sponsor-turned-blind-eye-to-lance-armstrongs-doping/5564074 This is the bit where I'm meant to inject some cutting wit (?) ... Reality is I feel a bit creepy :rolleyes:

Very true, I used them so often for long exposures in time lapse that I lost sight of the usual context :) (By stopping down and stacking ND's I could achieve the effect of a 180deg shutter for much longer frame periods - and the usual long exposure subjects called for deep DOF anyhoo)

The filter for all the models I've used sits in front of the prism: This picture is RX4/RX5 turret - but I know it is also the case for the SB/SBM and EL as I have super-16 versions of the SB and EL (suspect EBM also, although I've never touched one). As far as I knew the only Bolex made super-16 factory originals were SBM and EL (again, could easily be mistaken, maybe RX5? ... but at least they'll all be 'later model' 13x finders). Anyhoo, yeah unfortunately the filter makes a bit of a poo in this regard, but at least you're more likely to notice it and not make the mistake of leaving it in when you weren't exposing for it. Eye patch ( B)) try it ;)

Is certainly sub-optimal in that regard, but not all shots use ND and a closed iris. As a solution I've seen an operator resort to using an eye patch to keep his viewing eye adjusted for the dark...

From wikipedia (so take it with the same amount of salt as you would a movie):

I think most of the confusion comes from the specific terminology and also general use of english. As David has pointed out 'shutter speed' actually refers to a time period, so 'faster' which means a higher number in the reciprocal actually results in a shorter, i.e. smaller time period. Now when I say 'smaller' do I mean it in an absolute sense or a relative one ?? :wacko: :rolleyes: ;) I understand it all makes sense to people who have figured it out, but try if you can to decouple your understanding and see it afresh - to newcomers it's a bit confusing. I still think looking at an actual shutter and reverse engineering the explanations and terminology from that is the best method to truly understand it.

I'll try my hand to fill in the conceptual gap here :) They are mechanically (and mathematically) related via frame rate. Increasing frame rate makes the shutter speed take less time i.e. 'faster' Decreasing the shutter angle makes the shutter speed faster You could (if you had a shutter that allowed for it) actually increase frame rate and increase shutter angle such that the shutter speed were the same before and after the changes. It is best understood when you look at an actual shutter and see how it behaves as it rotates over time - you have tried wikipedia huh? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_disc_shutter

Yip, and to complicate matters we're not sure of how perpendicular the meter was to the card at the time of reading.