Ira Ratner

Thanks for reminding me about this. I knew that, but from a mental point of view for a lot of us who did 35mm still work, we can't resist thinking in that doubling method, though tehnically wrong.

Patrick, I had no idea about this. I thought that the ONLY advantage of my M42 K3 was the capacity to take those lenses. I didn't know a C-mount could. Are you saying M42 camera to C lens? If so, that's nothing I want or need. It's C camera to M42 lens, like posted here. And what do you mean that a 50 doesn't become a 100? I have a s***load of lenses I recently bought, haven't shot yet, but this was the premise I've been working off of. Is there like a different formula for the conversion for each focal length? I mean, I have just about every range covered and I'll know what's what when I screw the things on, but I'd like to know the theory and actual math.

Gazoo, you're a really nice guy. And you DID understood my stupid sense of humor. I'm just an amateur, but I'm an OLD amateur who has done a lot of 35mm still work. Basically, when you buy a lens, it's not really a "range" of f-stops you're looking for, although I know what you mean by that. If you're buying fixed focal lenses or zooms--and we all said here to get fixed lenses, not zooms--you want the widest MAXIMUM aperture. For example, for a 50mm, 1.2 is the best available. Then 1.4. (NOT 1:2. It should say 1:1.2.) It's not only that the 1.2 lets in more light, which makes it a "faster" and better lens for low light situations. It will also be a SHARPER lens. I have a few 55mm 1.8 and 2.0 lenses, and although they can be okay, the good stuff is 1.2 and 1.4. When you go to longer focal lengths, the maximum apertures will increase. So a 135mm lens at 2.8 is a good lens.

I don't understand this Reeves thing--watching him act is like watching paint dry. I see this movie as being exactly like War of the Worlds: I liked the remake, but no way did it come close to the original. How the heck could it? It's a different time. But I enjoyed it--from my couch. But I'm glad I didn't pay to see it. What remake is coming next? Gone With The Wind? Some things just shouldn't be touched.

Hey, thanks for that one! Didn't know that.

I didn't know they made something like that. Does that mean I can get an MD to M42 adapter on top of that, and use all of M42 lenses? WHich means I now have more reason than ever to buy myself a Bolex?

The worst thing about owning a K3 in M42 mount are all of these cheap lenses available on eBay: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...N:IT&ih=006 With my top bid of $63 and my winning price of $42, I now have the fattest and longest lens on the block--which as you know, makes me a real man, unlike the rest of you with those wimpy c-mount things. (HAH!) At 5.6, we ain't talking speed here. So in sunny South Florida (let's assume very sunny but with tree/canopy cover here and there), can I hope to shoot 100 Plus Reversal with this lens? Or do I have to go 200 Tri? (I'm only shooting b&w reversal.) I got this only for nature stuff, because I just know that I'll make a fortune selling stock of discarded Budweiser cans floating in the Everglades. I guess this is a stupid question, because at this focal length, I'm going to have to really stop down for any DOF, correct? So it's Tri only?

Hi, Gazoo. Do you understand a New York "sense of humor?" (That's where I'm originally from--New York.) I hope you do! First, you should never call yourself a "promising young filmmaker." That's what your MOTHER calls you, but "promising" is the wrong adjective. You want to say "aspiring." "Promising" is a compliment that others say about you, but you never say it about yourself. Next--no, I don't know where the heck in Denmark you're talking about. Next again, never have a title for your production until it's completed. A title means nothing. Finally, as said above, forget about your variable F-stop zooms, and use primes instead. For now, buy the BEST and FASTEST Nikon prime you can afford. And for an all-purpose lens , let's say a 50 or 55mm. Now, just do some shooting with THAT and really learn it, for all types of views. (Long shots, wide shots, medium, close-up, extreme close-up, etc.) In other words, pretend you're doing an entire production with just the one lens. Yeah, a Nikon isn't a Zeiss, but a high-quality Nikon brand lens is DAMN good.

Greg, anything done as ad work by a particular ad agency, for a particular client, isn't going to be available as stock footage for sale. That's proprietary work that's never put up for sale. However, some of the still stock photo houses also sell video/film clips, and maybe THEY have the kind of thing you're looking for. Online, check Comstock, Photodisc, and others--and I wish I could help you more but it's been years since I bought stock stills online. So there are probably a ton of other names I'm unaware of now. The thing is, the whole market for this has changed over the last 10 years, the MAIN change being that the still houses now also sell more video, due to a lot of mergers and consolidation in the industry, and due to the fact that it's now so easy to show the clips for sale on web sites. But if, for example, you have to have a 2008 Expedition riding up the Pacific Coast Highway, meaning a clip of a specific model, that's a really impossible nut to crack. Ford, or Mercedes, or any of them just don't put this kind of footage up for sale. They spend many thousands upon thousands for these shoots (think helicopters!), but they don't do it to resell the footage. Of course, the way this economy is going and the auto bailout, this can all change by Thursday--and you may be able to get exactly what you want for a buck and a half!

NOW I get it: You want to use that gel holder, which is 77mm.

I really give up here, because I'm understanding nothing the way you're explaining it: You can get a 65mm ring for the Cokin holder, or a 77, which takes the Cokin square/rectangular filters. So once again--what is the end game here with 77mm? I asked you before but can't seem to get an answer on this. What the f*** does the 77mm size have to do with any of this?

I am totally missing something here: The first link you posted is just the Cokin system, which I use. Why do you need a 65 to 77 step-up ring? Where does the 77 size come in?

Here's something that brings you from 65 to 72 for conventional round filter thread: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/3106...mp_On_Step.html So now you just have to find a 72 to 77, which I'm sure is easy to find but I'm too lazy to find it myself right now and I want to have dinner. But what kind of attachment are you talking about?

Tried to delete this double post. Can't.

Can you do single frame on the Kinor? If so, I would think that would be your first step, shooting hundreds of frames. Next, don't you actually focus with the bellows? That's why the lenses don't have focusing rings. Finally, I hope your tripod is built like a tank. Once you get that close, if you fart in the same room, you'll see it in the exposure. Well, one of MY farts anyway.

Uhhh...I just reread what Richard posted, and my post above makes no sense in regards to that. Plus, it was redundant. SORRY! He already said it about square in-front-of-lens filters, not the screw-ins.

I sure believe what Richard is saying, but even if it WASN'T true: Couldn't you just use Cokin P or Z square series--HUGE filters--and mount the holder via their universal P mount adapter which doesn't screw into the filter thread at all, but attaches to the outside barrel via simple pressure thumb screws? This is my fix for my Peleng 8mm, which you can't screw ANYTHING into. I basically worship Cokin for an inexpensive filter solution that covers all of your lenses with the same filter--just different rings for the holders. And working in 16mm with about 10 lenses, that's a ton of savings for me.

I don't know squat about video (or much else either), but I would think you would DEFINITELY want to play with a split focus filter, whereas you can have a sharp in-focus shot of a close up, with the infinity coverage in focus as well. It's just a matter of rotating the filter so one side of it makes the diopter/focus correction, and the other is just clear. They're a lot of fun to play with for some real interesting effects.

This is the most retarded thing I ever heard: Is GW running NZ now?

Ron, it is very common for the old analog meters that the battery check doesn't work. It doesn't work on my old Minolta Spot Meter either, but that's a totally different circuit and it has nothing to do with how much juice you're giving the actual metering function. It's a just a battery check, and nothing more. And yep: You just use the meter to determine F stop, so you use those Cine settings. If you're shooting film, make sure the meter's shutter speed matches up with the camera's at your fps. On my K3 with the spot meter, it DOESN'T. It's like 1/3 stop off. And I don't know WHAT the hell you do with video.

Brian, it all boils down to this: Life basically sucks, and when you eventually ACCEPT this basic fact, you'll make GREAT films! But I digress: There's simply no right or wrong, correct or not, advice on how to proceed with your career/life. If there was, life WOULDN'T suck! It's all a crap shoot, buddy. And as said above, do what you want to do. And don't listen to any butts telling you not to. Least of all, don't listen to your PARENTS!!! You can love them to death, but for film career advice--forget it. Unless someone in the family's last name is Coppola.

When someone is killed or injured on film, NOTHING is more dramatic than that black blood. The color blood? Usually looks like Smuckers, and even if it doesn't, just no comparison. The two are such different media that I'm always amazed when someone poses this question, but I know it keeps getting asked. Maybe I'm just old.

Clean that camera really well now.

Cono de Madre! Me gusta! I loved it, but even though I said that, I have to tell you what I didn't particularly like. And remember--I'm not a professional here. I'm just commenting as a viewer. I truly, truly, TRULY loved the documentary look to this, because combined with the music, it simply worked for me and was outstanding. And I LOVED seeing those weapons scenes where they weren't necessarily firing--because that's where the real tension is anyway. Anyone can pull the trigger and show the thing go bang, and that's no big deal. But combined with the music, what you did really built a suspense for the action to come. However, I thought that every time you cut to the main character, he just didn't fit the rest of what was going on there. His expressions looked fake. I'm hoping that this is only a case of picking the wrong shots of him to use for the trailer, but he just doesn't look all that heroic or convincing for this great drama that is about to unfold. In other words, putting the film aside and JUST talking about the trailer, I think it would have been better to show him more as a non-hero at first, and building up to becoming one. Of course, this might have nothing to do with the story at all, so take that for what it's worth. And remember that it's really easy for me to critique from here, having done absolutely nothing myself. But this sounds like a GREAT story and project and I wish you all of the suerte in the mundo! All you have to do now is teach ignorant American youth who Patton actually was. HAH!!!!!!!!

Uhhhhhhh.... Do you want to simply look up three posts from here to my post of November 21?