Gregg MacPherson

This humorous anecdote to throw some confusion into the topic. I once worked second unit ist AC for a couple days on a film by New Zealland's only great film artist (IMHO). We were close to the main unit in this big warehouse. You couldn't hear the director. You heard the 1st AD relay or extend direction. I heard the crew mutter "what was that..." The imported American male lead actor was having to do his own stunt, falling down a ladder as the wooden dowels snapped. He was really pissed and loud about it. I looked over as I was inching the Arri II and he flashed me an angry look. Shortly after the director came over and helped us execute our shot. Cool guy, I thought. Later, I heard that he would break down and wail when they ran out of their film stock allowance before days end. Even more cool. So what's a people person? The film was really great actually, art. Well regarded. But for some reason, some people are grossly missunderstood or misperceived. Sometimes all the crew care about is whether it makes their job easier or not, and whether they have crayfish (big lobsters) for lunch or not. I had french fries (vegetarian).

Maybe Dom is still monitoring this thread. I am really curious how they measure FFD on a digital camera. Can't exactly roll your dial guage around on the sensor surface. Can't put a refective surface behind the gate and use an autocollimator. Any simple description of how it is done? Dom, if the focus scales are out by 1m doesn't that mean a big error on the FFD? Cheers, Gregg.

You act as though you feel entittled to this. There are many of us who would be interested in anecdotes from Richard's history developing and producing his films. The argumentative atmosphere makes this less likely to happen. Take most of the blame for that Phil. You are too focused on trying to win an argument. It may be a costly argument. Cheers from the colonies, Gregg.

(Part 3) More thoughts on the prosaic vs the poetic In terms of the more profound aspects of sense experience, I believe that film is founded on the photographic image. The instantaneous impression that is made on a piece of film. The palpable connection between the thing being photographed and those that get to see the image. I riffed on these intimate connections in another thread on this forum: http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=58446&hl= In terms of the foundation of film in narrative or story telling terms, we obviously have literature and the theatre. So we have words. Words can be crudely expository, prosaic, or they can be profoundly evocative of sublime states of awareness. Words can evoke images and sounds within the mind. So words or literature is one of the parents of narrative in the cinema, and the more profoundly evocative titterature is the parent of the same thing in film. And films can contain words themselves, words that are not expository, prosaic. There are those that have used words as evocative code rather than prosaic code in the development of their films. I have a wonderful book with some images of Eisenstein's working pages while developing his films. For some artists, there is no real boundary between words and pictures. The pages normally contain quite potent sketches that evoke critical ideas and forms. Did Eisenstein have a part in the development of the pragmatic film language that the modern prosaic cinema is founded on? Regardless, the contrary value, the ability to recognize and express the instantaneous, whole value of ideas was there in his working process. Sorry, out of time to properly expand and illustrate these ideas, again. Gregg

So only 44 years old then. The stuff I processed in the 80s may have been only 24 years old? When I got this film recently I assumed that the TriX would be no good. The old chap selling it said that if I process as reversal the base fog issue goes away. I had to think about that. I only have processed as neg before. I think it makes sense, the base fog will dissapear with all the other exposed emulsion. Thinking again, does it mran that our highlights are ok, but our blacks are now lifted by the fogg, so no longer black? Cheers, Gregg

I second Adrien on that. Get a meter. Those Seconic studio delux analogues are great. I used one. Cheap as french fries now on ebay. For a while, don't leave home without it, measure the light and the basic ratios. Good luck.

Freya: "......in the experimental film world........it's all about the primacy of the image over everything else. This is why there is such an outroar at any threat to film in that sector......" This struck a chord with me. If poetic narrative, or film pregnant with art, is in fact a reminder of more subtle states of experience or selfhood, then the fact of the photograhic image on film has a logical part within that. Direct cognition of objects. Direct impression apon the medium (film) vs a virtual representation or simulation of objects. So thanks for making that connection. Cheers, Gregg.

I can't really explain why but Det. Holder (streetwise ex meth head) is such a cool listen on this show. Not just the sound quality, but the writing/delivery also. I tried to transcribe this from the last episode. Det Holder: Soowhaaatup wid yooand d bossman...? Det Linden: (said something) Det Holder: Aah c'moon Linden...I dun gotta be ma sleuth par excellence ta see that the cat's got the hand in the jella jar...An it ain the firstime neitha

Abdulla, I don't mean to be disrespectfull or discouraging. This amount of money is very small. If this was all that you needed to go ahead and make the film, why not just earn it yourself. Take a night job and save the money. Maybe Kickstarter here is giving some experience of how films may be funded in the future, but in practical terms, with this small amount of money, I just feel you are creating a fantasy obstacle. Fasbinder used to start shooting his films before he secured finance. With a $1500 budget, why not you. Good luck.

(Part 2) So what is "story"? There is a strong influence in human experience towards greater objectivity, having our awareness more identified with the particular, the discrete, the world of objects and object-ness. Ideas and elements of experience, character or human action become like a vast sea of discrete little blocks that may shift endlessly, re-align or recombine. Contrary to this, there is an influence in human awareness that hungers for less bounded modes of experience, depth, perceptivity. It's looking for poetry or magic, and may go look for it in the gaps between the blocks. The tendency to over-objectivity is almost overwhelming at this point in history. There is an ongoing tension between that over-objectivity and the subjective perceptivity that it overshadows. Lets jokingly call it objectivity vs perceptivity in human awareness and culture. Thinking of "story". We have the overtly constructed prosaic narrative vs the discovered, as if already whole, poetic narrative. Let's call that the prosaic vs the poetic (1). If prosaic narrative manipulates component elements to attempt wholeness or a coherent unitary value in the film, we could say that poetic narrative already has it's whole value intact, contained within it's conception. By it's nature the poetic contains or expresses wholeness, the elusive or transcendent unitary value that we all gravitate towards. That is, when we aren't eating popcorn and snogging. So those making proclamations about the value of story in film will need to qualify "story" in order to be meaningful. The notion of story contains the described contradiction or conflict. Far from being a problem, this to me opens the way to a more generalized, more truthful and useful idea. So what is a "poetic narrative"? A story or narrative of any kind transports us from one condition to the next. At the start we are one thing and at the end we are something else. Instinct tells me to say that poetic narrative transforms us towards more subtle, perceptive states of being. Is the prosaic vs poetic just a graded scale, explicit values of intellect and feeling at one end and more refined values of notion and feeling at the other? It's a subject worth a lifetime of thought. (1) I think it was Tarkovsky's writing that pointed me to this necessary descrimination between prosaic and poetic narrative Cheers, Gregg. PS. Hey Freya, did you like my snogging joke? Doing my best to include L'Anglais.

(Part 1) Hey Nicolas, You are a brave guy. To challenge or enquire into the notion of story is brave. Working writers and cinematographers find the consensual notion of story very useful. Taken for granted as fact normally. With good reason. But I am fully in support of exploration into what "story" really is, which impacts directly on your concern over the relative value of story within film and the working process of film makers.. I think the word story is ubiquitous, means many things. My pet thought is that the whole experience of a film has been loaded into the story word. Which, in your terms, means that all the critical aesthetic and technical contributions, have become, to some degree, embedded or included into the "story" notion. So when someone enjoyed or took something nourishing from a film, commenting that they really enjoyed the story, they are sometimes really commenting on all the aesthetic and technical aspects that enabled that story. One could continue on in this fashion refining or opining on what "story" is or has become. But there are some other directions that are more interesting. One could go directly to concepts that may yield a more useful and universal idea. Internal conditions govern the external conditions. I propose that the internal conditions of the mind govern or organize those more external or formal. Some energized, often momentary or flickering thing exists in the mind, evolves and at some point commonly becomes what may be called a story. And then on to become a film (containing a developed form of that story). For some reason, some film makers or writers have their objective awareness locked into this "story" layer. If you read James Steven Beverly (a contrary example) on this thread, he is very observant of the value of story in his process, but he makes pointed reference to the internal, notional values in his experience that prefigure it (story). So I think the world is progressing. Some working story tellers might previously have dismissed this line of enquiry out of hand. So I think some enquiry is due on what is "story". It is possible that some linguist or neuro-linguist, someone, has already had the critical thoughts on this and film makers have just not caught up. But I don't think we should be afraid of examining this ourselves. My entry into giving order to this potentially confusing zone of ideas is to observe that when we watch a film the only absolute is that when it ends we feel in some sense satisfied. Desire drives the phenomenal universe and a film must transport us from one condition to the next. But what do human beings really want? A young man takes his girlfriend to the cinema, superficially to be entertained, eat popcorn, flirt or snog (English version of French kissing), but underneath, hungry for something deeper. Insights into life. Hunger for art. Hunger for extreme values of sensual experience. Commonly experienced things are relatively easy to describe, discuss or give a relative value to. But the less obvious things that one may seek in the cinema are more difficult. Small wonder that they are more difficult for artists, writers, story tellers, film makers to consider or discuss. Leaping ahead. Story has sometimes been proposed as something close to an absolute. But if experience itself is the reference point then it's easier to come up with a more general or universal idea of what a film is or can usefully be. I butted heads with a cadre of obdurate folk here in New Zealand . One proclaimed "Story is King" as advice to new film makers. I tried offering the "red pill" as in the Matrix and was banned not long after. For some entertainment relevant to your idea see... http://www.48hours.co.nz/forum/general-discussion/story-is-king-how-to-win-v48hours/?i=0#forum-replies Keep brave, Gregg. PS: I thought I had only seen Drive by NWR, an interesting, really sensualized film with, OK the story displaced a little or minimized. But I not long ago stumbled on Vallhala Rising on the Web and was deeply impressed.

I have a problem with edit function. It always times out. I wanted to add. PS. I'm refering to the second quote, challenging it. The first quote I much enjoy, just didn't get time to say much about it today

If one sees a skeletal figure approaching in a black cloak holding a scythe, knowing he may take 30 years or more to arrive, does one consider ones self dead? No. It may be that the end of VNF for TV 30 years ago prefigures the death of film. May be. But it was not the death of film. Why add this confusing language to an already confused and missunderstood thing? Cheers, Gregg.

Brian, I'm pretty sure it is a "paste stripe". I think the balance stripe on the perf edge will hide the top half of the edge number. Like you suggest, something will disolve that off so we could have a look. Years ago I hand processed lots of PlusX (as neg), which, from memory had variation in the type of info and or formatting on the edge, so I thought this might help identify or date the stock. I just dug out a large roll comprised of very short camera rolls shot in the late 80s on my home made optical printer. Trying to keep it clean, I just grabed the first edge data I saw. Written in tiny upper case right near the edge was KODAK PXR + 0 4 9 SAFETY FILM Then just after, jamed between the perfs was J1 74 46 911. The J1 was written above the 74, both in small font. Mark, Yes, that true. I think I may have to clip test all these rolls. My processing gear has been in hybernation in the basement for 17 years. Time to dig it out I suppose.

More thoughts ensuing regatding the old PlusX, TriX I just got. The stock is old and slightly cupped, the emusion side having shrunk a little. Given the sound stripe on either edge there is potential for the film in the gate to be cupped and the effective flange focal depth (FFD) in centre frame to be off by the stripe thickness. So I roughly measured the stripe thickness, based on a stack of eight layers, as a about 0.025mm/layer. I think this would be a significant number to a tech checking a FFD. Any thoughts? Cheers, Gregg

I was basically given a few old rolls of 16mm PlusX reversal and TriX neg. It has been sound striped by Zonastripe and canned as 200' daylight spools. The only info stuck to the cans, typed on a small piece of paper and cellotaped on is... MAGNETIC SOUND STRIPE PLUS X REVERSAL CONTROL No. 1341 TRI -X NEG. ZONAL REF:53474 or sometimes 53475 So is there any way of knowing what stock this actually is, or of estimating its age based on these Zonastripe numbers, or the dates within which Zonastripe were active. If I process some will the edge numbers or other info on that edge give some clue? Thanks, Gregg.

OK, will do, but this fun project has to wait it's turn for now. I did rummage through ControlBooth a while ago. That was a good read.

When adding an AZSpectrum video assist to an Eclair ACL, what mods are common for the VF or the VF mounting bracket. I asked Andew ar AZSpec this and he replied that a 5mm spacer was added under the VF mount (bracket) when removing the vid assist. There may have been some confusion about my question to him, or my interpretation of the answer. I will ask again. Meantime, some of you may have dealt with this issue when adding or removing the video assist. I'm wondering if some techs modify the VF itself when adding the vid assist. Most people leave their vid assist on all the time anyway. My big Kinoptik VF with vid assist on the camera focuses at about +4.5 / 6 on the diopter scale. Removing the vid assist I was heading for focus at max negative diopter but couldn't get there. There is a diopter element in the video assist I think. I will try andew again. One needs a solution to easily add or remove the video assist. Any thoughts. Cheers, Gregg.

Just to pre-empt a possible misunderstanding. I'm not saying Bladerunner was main stream. Edit: I'm finding the edit function a bit twitchy. May have a short time interval to complete or something. Otherwise these three posts probably could have been one.

Dangerous Days, The Making of Blade Runner is also on youtube, in three parts. Couldn't see part 1. Not sure which part the producer interviews are in. Anyway, if one is a Bladerunner devotee or a believer in art crossing the divide into the mainstream this collection of documentative pieces is unmissable.

Those numbers look like they're cumulative, the number at the top is supposed to be the total take up to that point. With the Blade Runner: The Final Cut DVD (C 2007) is an extra disk Dangerous Days: Making Blade Runner, including interviews with the producers, discussing all the financials.

On such a big production it's amazing how small a part of the budget the camera stock looks, even if they shoot a gazillion feet. I don't know what they pay per foot when they buy film from Kodak at that scale. Even if they paid as much as 50c/ft, 1.6million ft is only 0.44% of their budget (insured value).

Hey Dom, I stand corrected. My adapter could have been made for an autocollimator like yours. Does the switchability between standard and S16 mean mine was probably made for a camera? Did Eclair make this mount system first or did Chrosziel? Very cool picture.

It's definately a PL adapter for the ACL camera. I'd like to know who made this design, or hear from people who had used or serviced it to get some ideas.

i was preparing to sell this adapter when I discovered that the front part is eccentric by about 1mm to the lens axis, so I think it is designed to switch between S16 and standard 16. There is an extra knurled ring in the middle that lets you remove the front part. With a 180 degree flip you switch from standard to S16. There's a single registration pin with two hole positions, 180 degrees apart on the other face. It's easy and quick to do. If Im right this is very cool. I changed my mind about selling it. Does anyone recognize this adapter or know who made it? Cheers, Gregg.