Gregg MacPherson

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.

I don't think we have a problem with"flash rust". I was worried about unreacted Ospho in seams. I think it's designed to be painted over. Dribbled in paint over unreacted Ospho? May be better than nothing. I'm leaning to the Dan Kessler way now, just do what I need to. Actually there is very little rust on the inside of these lights. Maybe the seams will be OK for another 60 years or so. I cleaned a name plate and saw they are type 406, No916. I think they started making these in 1940.

You could check for light leaks into the MB. Throw a black cloth over the MB and lens and they will dissapear

@George It looks like an old version of what MR call a Baby Solar spot. Looks almost identical to this... http://www.theoldcinema.co.uk/1940%C2%92s-50%C2%92s-Mole-Richardson-Film-Light-on-Stand-c-7_117-p-8584 Mine has the odd kink in the yoke that you see here. My yoke is cast brass. It's possible that was a copy made here, so may not be the original yoke. Looking at the front of the light there is an extra sliding control rod on the bottom right that I think is just to give hard stops to the bulb position. The fllod/spot range is really wide. At 8' the flood is about 8' wide and the spot is about 1-1/2' wide.

Looking again at these old lights, The cushion for the lens looks like aesbestos. I'm guessing that there is a replacement part that is not. I can't see the separate part in the drawings to get a part number, but I just asked MR about this part in an email.

That may be almost the only option. I had a quick look at what car restoration guys do. Sofar (speed reading) it looks like rustkiller such as Ospho in a seam would need to be sealed. I don't think I can do that.

I think Cinetech may be gone. But does anyone sell parts for them? Drive gears, belts, gear box parts. Does anyone know if the gear clearance in the gearbox is adjustable? Cheers.

Thanks for the ideas you guys. Cheers, Gregg.