Simon Wyss

Richard, I think you can rely on two basic rules. First one says that everything may be sharp, second one says: the older the star the longer the focal length.

Jet Graphics, please fill in your civil name like anyone else. I dislike unsteadiness, too. I hate mince meat editing. The expression montage is ridiculous to me. Not that titles and action should be long ond boring but I want to be treated as an attentive and sensitive visitor. That demands a narrative will behind or within the expressive means, not in front of them. You can judge a video or a film by this: Am I explained anything firmly, am I told a story, am I told a joke finely? Seems that make-believe comes from television. I seem to have to believe all the incredibly inconsistent rubber foam.

One The film is not coated with remjet but with a backing layer that becomes removed in a processor by underwater remjets. I may appear pedantic. Two Still photography stock perforated BH is not made. Exception to the rule: Gigabitfilm 40

It wasn't. The difference between the aperture aspect ratios stems from the several steps the AMPAS standard went through. The silent (today so-called full) aperture has been agreed upon at a Paris international congress in 1909 and was 18 on 24 millimeters or .709 by .945 inches. When one cut off a tenth of the width inside the perforation for the sound track it wasn't so clear what the height should be. One settled at .631 by .868 in. which later became altered to 630 by 867. European standards provided for a 3 mm high frameline. The screens were three to four all of the time, and are still today for everybody who uses that dynamic format. As ISO 2907 reads: It is recognized that, in many cases, the actual film image area that is projected may be smaller than the maximum projectable image area. It is intended that the actual projected image area be the largest appropriately shaped figure that can be inscribed within the specified dimension.

Dear producer Let me tell you that you'd rather hire a sexy actress/actor than deliberate upon lenses. That we won't come back to the which-is-the-best-camera-for-a-porn-movie thread!

It's been tried with Polachrome. I say nono.

No, I'm not. Are you from India? LVSVM . . . I've got the information from Mr. Haas, former sales head at Agfa-Gevaert headquarters. It is somewhat outdated and could have been exaggerated already at the time, so in need of an update. I think you'll find an ear with Agfa India private Ltd., Bombay, a 100 percent daughter of Agfa-Gevaert, Mortsel.

Great pixilation!

High, Karl You're stating Film Loader, hihi. No slope was intended. I was brought up very rudely in the sixties. I know I must get rid of some tone. Still, a bunch of us started to teach the initial poster instead of encouraging him. Why not let him find out himself? I thought it's such a rare incident that someone dares simply picking up the existing.

Please excuse everyone, I'm after words, alright? Language. Terms. Who says, a film is sharp? No professional does. We say the picture is sharp or unsharp. Friends, we are far away from measurements, graphs and calculation. It's Kodak who publish rubbish and a colleague who wants to hear our opinion. Unfortunately, we have become accustomed to that kind of ad texts. Rochester, try not to babble!

Racist? You mean chauvinist. The translation part is funny.

Max, laß dich von den Angelsachsen nicht einschüchtern, jeder kann sein Negativ schneiden und montieren. Das beste Gerät baut Ernst Hammann, Amorsbach. Ich kann dich mit Filmkitt versorgen, dem einzigen Produkt, das keine nieren- oder leberschädigenden Dämpfe abgibt, nicht cancerogen ist und langsam bindet. Es stinkt nur nach Essig und heißt PARATAX. Gerne säße ich mit dir in dem alten Schneideraum als Assistent. Max, don't let yourself be awed by the Anglosaxons, everyone can cut and splice his negative. Hammann builds the best equipment. I can furnish you with film cement. I'd like to sit in that old editing room with you as assistant.

No, Dominic, the initial question is That is crap. Do tell me what a sharp film is besides sex. The terms have come up, acutance, mathematics, but there is no discussion of such things as long as the picture is out of focus. Sharpness has to do with lenses, focus.

Rubbish. The term sharpness belongs to optics, nothing else. Photographic layers are discussed under the aspect of resolution, resolving power. There is nothing sharp or unsharp about a film. A lens is focused, the more or less clear image is called sharp or unsharp. A shame that Kodak folks jumble words like laymen.

Right guess. Spools for Double-Eight film are specified by ISO 1020, sizes 25 ft, 50 ft, and 100 ft. They have 3- and 4-splined spindle holes.

I have introduced Gigabitfilm 40 to cinematography in 2001 (35 mm), in 2005 (16 mm). We have shot with an Arriflex BL II, with a Paillard-Bolex H 16 S, and other makes. Its finest application is as a duplicating stock. Also, it served me well with variable density sound work. A gamma as low as log 0.4 is feasible. There's a machine version of the original developer under way. I did all processing by hand until 2008. www.gigabitfilm.de

ISO 1019 specifies daylight loading type spools for 16 mm motion-picture film cameras, there is also the 50 foot size. http://www.filmdex.com/film_11.shtml

That's correct but no more for black and white. A sharp negative has been exposed behind a lens, and everything after the negative actually should deal with that lens' geometry. That is why a good contact positive correctly projected outperforms any positive derived from data out of the same negative. But I am leaving the reversal issue.

Agfa have around 80 percent of the India cinema print market.

I know the beast. What's up?

Never mind

Not so. Fomapan R 100 is produced and marketed by Foma Bohemia, Ltd., of Hradec Králové, Czech Republik. It is available as 35-mm. film, 16-mm., Double-8, and Double Super-8. Then there is Kahl of Brühl in Germany who sells an E-6 process colour reversal stock in Double-8, along with more stuff. Then you have Wittner in Hamburg who offer different makes. Then you have Gigabitfilm 40 which will become available also in Double-8 in summer 2011. http://www.foma.cz/ http://www.wittner-kinotechnik.de/home.php http://www.kahlfilm.de/ http://www.gigabitfilm.de

Thank you, John, you give it in exactness better than I do.

There are movie stocks on the market that are meant to be developed after the E-6 process. E-6 has evolved from the older E-4 and the still older A-2 process of Agfa. There is the historical fact of forcedly published patents such as with Agfacolor in 1945. Eastmancolor derives from Agfacolor (1950). Motion-picture colour film of today is hardly comparable to these systems. Chemistry has been changed, too. An E-6 process film will not stand up to properly treated colour negative and positive after ECN-ECP, an ISO speed value given for both sides.

Why this mincemeat? I must say that I could not see anything like editing out of the pictures' rhythm, development from a given pace outwards. You chop up everything. Why?