Ira Ratner

That's not the relevant way to look at it: I'm making up numbers here, but let's say their film sales were a billion and made money, but the other stuff was 25 billion and lost money. Doesn't matter that film made money--the future of the business is in the other stuff, the products that will keep them alive and viable..

Thom, you really described it well. What an unsettling film, but wow--intense. What do you think it was shot on?

Thanks, Rodrigo!!! Guys, just scroll all the way down to the bottom of that new window to disable it.

Cool! Once you post what equipment you'll be shooting with, people will start answering your questions one by one. For example, now that you said it was FILM, that makes a big difference--since there are different film stocks (that means types) to choose from, and each has a different "look" depending on what you want to accomplish. There is negative film, which then becomes a positive (normal) image when transfered to digital (like everyone used/uses for still film photography for prints). And then there is what's called Reversal form (called slide film for still work), which develops as a POSITIVE image. And it stays positive, normal looking, when it gets transferred to digital. And one more thing for this post: Different film types have different "speeds," meaning sensitivity to light. It's called ASA, and the higher the number--200, for example--the LESS light you need to expose it properly, which is a good thing. The BAD thing about it is with this higher speed and sensitivity comes more grain, teeny dots. This could be FINE for the look you're going after, but film choice is a MAJOR decision to make.

CJ, you're asking way too many questions to expect a serious response. Let's start with the first question: You said 16mm digital. What's that? Are you shooting on 16mm film, or digital video? One has nothing to do with the other, unless you're shooting 16mm film and having it telecined to digital format for editing in your computer. Let's start with your answer for this, and we'll take it from there. Y de donde esta? Mi espanol no es tan bueno, pero mi esposa es venezolana y aprendi hablart espanol, mas o menos, de ella.

Oh--then I WANT to see it! I thought it was a whitewash of the real story, but the way you describe it, it wasn't.

Also, Obama has to get this thing passed with Republican support--and if there's one thing Republicans will always support, it's tax breaks for businesses. Sorry--I couldn't control myself there.

I heard some negative reviews on this one, but I'm required by law to see it since I'm a Jew. I also heard that for something which was supposed to be historical, it was criminally inaccurate, in that for real, the Jews did some pretty horrible, or revolting, things.

May I ask why you want to do this? Because you already have 35 cine film? If not, I'm lost: Although your SLR may adequately take film not loaded into a canister, it still will only take a limited number of feet. Plus all still film processors still need to develop it from a canister. Plus again, just about ALL still film processors can give you excellent and cheap digital files at the same time they process your film. What's your end game here? What are you trying to accomplish?

Adrian is the BEST!!! And I apologize for not responding to his African adventures in the way that I should have! (Been real busy at work.) Hope all went well!

This is just a tax break on the purchase of film, and while it SOUNDS like a lot of money, it sure isn't. It's nothing: You have to put talent salaries aside, because that has nothing to do with it. The motion picture industry IS an important industry in this country responsible for, dare I say, MILLIONS of jobs? When you really do the math on EVERYTHING that U.S. film production touches--both in production expenditures and worldwide distribution--it is vital. As a matter of fact, it's one of the FEW industries where the U.S. totally kicks ass--hardly ANYONE else comes close. And when they do, it's still minute compared to the U.S. film industry. And don't male me laugh by mentioning India. This is a totally understandable break for the industry, which will reap its expenditure many times over in job creation. Especially job creation for the CRAPPY films, which is where 99.9% of working professionals make their living in the first place.

I can't believe this movie isn't getting better press. Outstanding.

Good Kodak story: 1970 or so, and I was 14. The Fotomat processing chain had been becoming popular, and I used them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fotomat Well, they mis-cut a roll of transparency film and gave me an apology, to which I went ballistic. At that time, their booths were yellow and RED (instead of blue) and they displayed a large "Kodak" sign on top, since they sold Kodak film. So any reasonable person assumed this was a Kodak company. I wrote to Kodak to complain (I was looking for some free rolls or something because that WAS an important roll, a school project), and they contacted me to sign an affidavit so they could take Fotomat to court. They were going to send someone down from Rochester to Brooklyn to meet with me. (Since then, the booths were changed to yellow and blue, and no more Kodak sign.) Anyway, when the guy arrived at my (parents') house to take me out to lunch and get the thing signed, I don't think he expected it to be a kid. We took care of business, I was happy with just McDonald's, and then he asked me what kind of film I liked. It was Kodachrome 25, he opened up his trunk, and my jaw dropped. It was a film-lover's paradise stocked to the brim with film. He handed me a brick (don't remember how many rolls were/are in a brick), and that was my very special Kodak moment.

Order cancelled--and it's a good thing. The guy said that he couldn't ship it to the U.S. because it was overweight. He would deduct $15 to send it without the wooden box, or give me a full refund, which I opted for. I had ordered a Lomo type also, because I was afraid of those inconsistent results with this one. The thing was cool and I wanted it anyway, but in this economy--no can do.

I ain't no expert, but I immediately saw that the "Burger King" in the sign and on the building was horizontally flopped.

Kodak has been consistent throughout the last 25 years--consistently wrong. Aside from film, they totally lagged behind everyone when it came to digital, and their industrial stuff was barely enough to sustain them. But it's like every 5 years, you hear about their massive layoffs, yet they're still around.

BOY, was that GOOD!!! MUY bueno!

You have the 1931 model, correct? Like this one? http://www.xs4all.nl/~wichm/moviemaker.jpg I was going to pick up one of these a few months back for the heck of it, but someone beat my eBay bid and I didn't want to go nuts with it. (I buy ENOUGH crap on eBay.) I didn't do any research on this camera, but will this work with single perf film? Do you know about that--that just about all 16mm film sold nowadays is single perf? Also, have you played with cranking it yet? If not, look for a switch/lever which adjusts the frames per second. I don't know if the Vitascope has one, but check. If it has variable fps, that's going to of course radically affect your expose--hence those ND filters I was talking about. (You could jerry rig something down the road using square filters, It has a tripod socket, right?) As far as metering, you're going to obviously need a separate meter--or you can just wing it outdoors with 100 Plus-X and have some fun. It's cool to get into these old cameras, but with the expense of film and processing, you really want to have all of your ducks in a row before pulling the trigger. Or as many ducks as possible.

Debbie Does Dallas. And if you're too young to know what that is, look it up on Wikipedia.

HAH!!! But I never even heard of a non-water urinal. When I get to the urinal, I make my own. But seriously folks, I think anything that gets your stuff out there to be seen by more people has to be a good thing: 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999% of people doing this stuff aren't going to be successful in the commercial sense, so at least there's a place to host your work where thousands will actually see it.

I'm shocked that as a track manufacturer you would say this.

My guess is that the funky, unrealistic effect in the first link was done in post, regardless of the stock used. (Didn't check the other links. The first was enough) Like, it didn't matter what filmed they used--they just maxed color saturation and contrast in post, which is okay for a minute or two--but anything longer, and it's just annoying and all wrong. Can you imagine watching a feature film that looked like that throughout? But otherwise, I agree. I love those dynamic colors.

Phil, did you really think that reversal film doesn't have to be processed, and that you just take it from your camera and put it on your projector? I feel like we're being punked here. No offense intended, but that's a first for me. It's film--not video.

Brandon, I lived there my entire life before moving to FL. Go for it: It will be a life experience for you, and regardless of the amount of work you get, you'll have the time of your life. And you'll hopefully wash your brain of those conservative Bush philosophies FOREVER. They actually believe in stem cell research there! Capable of curing hundreds of horrible diseases!

Let's stop calling people idiots, okay?