Chris Millar

So... Do it! Not like everyone can just jump in and it works immediately - you gotta keep at it - persistence might just get you that elusive 'break' ... Or maybe you just happen to be clever enough to manage yourself ;)

I think that clause is there to make it crystal clear in at least layman's legal terms that they won't be having anything to do with compensating production costs. But given the choice between stock replacement and the bad press resulting from not doing so, they'd be mad not to replace your stock. Even if it doesn't say they will replace your stock, its pretty clear from the context of what had been discussed already that if things went south in processing that stock costs are the least of your worries

Giray, Not a yank hater. But yeah, fair enough - sorry to drag it this way so I'm outta this thread. and "Worked with Spectra" can sometimes be interpreted as well, with, as in alongside, same vested interests ...

Alright, to answer your question directly - and as Chris has already pointed out: In my experience, labs do usually make things right when they goof. Secondly, I have no 'purpose' other than, I guess, just shooting the breeze - being 'forum-ey'... My advice is: you ask them about your issue directly. And furthermore, ask yourself (and please don't feel compelled to report back the answer): Did you really need to apply moral leverage of your own, in public, to get Giray or whoever from Spectra to chime in? ;)

In lieu of not keeping your issues with morality to yourself I'd suggest asking them that question ;)

>>off topic alert<< It's not exactly good business practise or I guess 'nice' to purchase something just to use it for half a day then return it either. Perhaps I'm peculiar in this? I've noticed this practise when visiting USA on a few occasions. A chain electronics store I bought a hard disk from had a specific returns queue that had more floor/line space allocated to it than the purchasing queue - and lo and behold, it was full. If memory serves me correctly, it was lined with huge bags of M&M's in case you were so prompted to make an impulse returning your product, er, 'purchase' - i.e. your refund would be reduced. Obviously not like this everywhere in the states, and examples can be found elsewhere... Just, in my opinion, the tendency is a bit more pronounced.

The way I see it is that heart, you're taking something definitely unique - a point source if you will - in the field of all possibilities and in quantising it, you're giving it volume, volume that could subsume multiple unique entities having also been quantised. It no longer comes from one source, it comes from a distribution of possibilities - it's essence diluted. Of course, this means nothing if you don't see it that way :rolleyes:

looking forward to this one...

When not shooting unevenly lit brick walls ? Film>>see my other post ;)

Film, at least at the level of abstraction relevant to the discussion simply isn't *intrinsically* defined in a way that the same methods can be applied. You can compare the relative outcomes of film with itself or perhaps even digital given a suitable testing regime, but that is *applied* to it and not inherent in its nature. Heh, perhaps I went a bit too abstract after all...

Just as there is frequency in amplitude over time, frequency can be defined over space - i.e. spatial frequency - white line, black line, white line, black line = a square 'wave'... With some basic enough tweaks in your head all the literature defined in terms of signals over time can be applied to spatial frequencies :)

I managed to ruin 400' of a music video by letting a magnet I was using with a hall effect sensor set up get inside a mag. The playback was so loud I couldn't hear the horrible noises of the film backing up. The feeling upon realizing I'd have to put a cap on everyones satifsction ... Lost about 1.5hrs and perhaps the trust of the DP

And if you're spooling your own daylights down from 400' you'll notice that your daylight spools are heading off to the lab with your film... Make sure you: a. Have enough spools for the amount of film you have on the shelf and at the lab. b. Politely but clearly ask that the lab return your daylights with your developed film. :)

gopro.com

Think of all the fees going to the attorneys and clerks. All for what? Some large large faults in the patent system...

Well, strictly, the control in a governor is an outcome of a simple and clever application of the laws of angular momentum. Dom/Jean-Louis will be able to advise as to the correct cleaning and lubrication of that part. If I recall I remember seeing something that looked like graphite in one of mine, but who knows if it was applied at or after the factory ...

They had me fooled for a while. Strange disconnect between the muppets they put in front of a camera talking about the camera and the actual object - assuming that there still is one, that is ... Google appear to confirm it, and they have a 'monochrome' update, yip, a B+W sensor (cool ?!) not much discussion round these parts though huh - except of course what you're reading right now.

Yip, and Digital Bolex do it better... It's more compelling because they manage to sound sincere in their mockumentary.

Digital Bolex do it better

Well ... sometimes your chosen career path doesn't have much to do with your chosen career path... often a good thing in hindsight -_- :D

I've been posting a lot of online references, footnotes and bibliographies myself lately ... Seems like a farce, no marker is ever going to take a sufficiently long stream of percent signs, ampersands, question marks, colons and random letters and actually type it in to a browser to check. I find gleaning information from the internet is like channel surfing - I read some 'fact' on wikipedia, then I hunt it down to verify it say from two other sources, when I reach a possible source I speed scan it looking for only text that will verify my fact, once I have done this twice, I take whichever one has the longest/most hard to read and type in URL and use it as my reference. Make sure you hand it in on paper. Before the internet, it's not like everything that was written is true ... It all was built and depended somewhat on other writings anyway. reference shmeference :P But yeah, sure ;)

I think with the appropriate diagrams people will see what Zac is taking about. It's a snip too complex for words alone... Terms get confused etc.

In terms of data you first need to decide what is meaningful to you - if film grain is meaningful to you then 8k or higher could make sense, especially in the larger formats - heck, you can scan one grain at 8k if you really want ... (http://www.optics.rochester.edu/workgroups/cml/opt307/spr04/jidong/) Please please lets not start a film vs. digital debate here - I'm just bringing this up to provide some context, that we can hopefully just nod along to or maybe prompt some more research/thought and each/all go our merry way - ok?? Anyhoo, film grain for some (and I can certainly play the part when prompted to by a digital zealot) is the image... And following from that it imparts a quality that digital cannot. So for some, 8k when scanning larger formats makes a lot of sense. If you disagree, then fine, good for you, don't do it :) Not quite sure what you mean by 'generating' ? You're sampling, at whatever rate, a sample is a sample. What samples do you define as generated and which aren't ? What is the limiting factor? is it something subjective perhaps ? ;) Nyquist rate - yeah, the wikipedia article isn't great, reads like it's been written by people trying to out-clever-erate the last contributor. I get them myself, but I really can't explain it without words, actually not so much explain it, but show the same plots of samples that I saw when the penny dropped (properly) for me - I'll try to hunt them down ... If I recall it's actually aliasing which is the outcome of too low a sampling frequency that is more illuminating:

Hrrrm, let me think about this a moment - at the moment I think yes, you're quite correct. (until I change my mind) But jeez, how the heck does the math work out in any general sense for the reality? Ouch, I guess you're looking at the algorithms used (or more likely still idealised) in 3D lighting ... and all the attendant computational complexity issues. Ridley what ?? you read into something not intended ? I hope it was funny/clever - it's yours to use ! (an interesting phenomenon, it's like inspiration out of thin air but with an unfortunate subtext of IP theft)

To make it even more concrete, the size of the source with respect to the subject *is* the inverse square law :) Agree, much easier to describe in person... :)