Gregg MacPherson

Some of those filters aren't perfect, but they might suit someone on a budget.

I had some spare 4x4 filters that I was thinking of selling. Wratten (glass) 85ND set, Harrison & Harrison (glass) diffusion (soft) set, maybe some others. I hadn't fully decided about the soft set yet. They are all used with some sign of use, but very useable. If interested I can send info and photos. Cheers, Gregg viz@xtra.co.nz

Stopping down and focussing close, the vignette is just about to touch the 16:9 HDTV frame line on my ground glass. It may work. Someone will probably point out that the lens may not perform well right at the edge of the glass.

There is a data cap on your total attachments, one may need to delete old photos. But even working within that I have sometimes stumbled inexplicaby when adding attached photos.

Hey Boris, Me too, I can't imagine the memory of my life without a Bolex. Pixilation, strapping it onto an improvised optical printer, shooting undercranked running through the forest naked with my wife on my honeymoon. Priceless. One concern I have with Bolex is that people generally never serviced them, so there will be many cameras that are about to run dry and get damaged. The cost of doing a CLA on a Bolex? Dom Jaeger's company in Melbourne does it for under $400, maybe guys like you can do for less. But this is higher than the purchase costs of many Bolex cameras. The same process is going to occur to the proffessional 16/S16mm cameras that have fallen or are falling off the proffessional use platform. So oportunities and dangers exist for those buying cameras. The old saying that you get what you pay for is completely missleading. It is possible to pay the same amount for a camera unserviced vs serviced, basically because the market is not adequately descriminating between the two. And not all sellers are equal when it comes to extracting money from a sale. Costs of a basic CLA are going to trend higher than the purchase price of cameras. Cheers, Gregg

The text editor wouldn't let me, so continuing on..... Guys like Brian are generous with advice (and he knows these cameras well). Try to enjoy and respect that and don't take offence too easily. The more you can figure out for yourself before you pose a question here the beter your question will be. Better questions lead to more interesting anwers.

Ah, a sense of entitlement. A modern social problem. We are all free to ask, but are we entitled to an anwer? Guys like Brian are generous with advice.

I think Nanolabs only do 8mm, 16mm up to 100' rolls in hand tanks. They don't use continuous processors. Read that on thir website.

I don't think you can afford to pay for permits or locations. You have to sell the creative, non commercial value of your project. Coffee shops, dinners, comedy clubs, they're often tying to build their own little story. It may be flattering for them to be part of the film. If that doesn't work then you have to create the locations somehow with help from friends, free junk for props, whatever space is available for free.

Thanks for the ideas you guys. I think John might be right. It' looks proportioned for a magazine on top. There is a window on the right hand side for looking at the mag footage and an access port that I think is to reach the inching knob.

I quite enjoyed this. I liked the compositions, scale, background and the tone of the voice over. It was like watching a half made little art film that was waiting for a couple more layers of idea. For example, if it was a film about the history of that particular camera and the owner, the images from their life becoming a layered, flickering, graphic element. The voiceover unchanged.

My barney isn't stretchy but it sort of drapes. I used to throw it on top of an ACL and it worked really well even though not fitting. I may have to take it to one of the rental houses and see if they recognize it. Cheers, Gregg.

Thanks for that. My barney doesn't look like yout barney.

When I got this barney years ago I was told it was for an SR but maybe they were wrong. I never tried it on an SR. Does anyone recognize it and know what camera it fits. If I have trouble attaching the photos I may have to post again. Thanks for any help. Gregg.

I have an SR II barney here unused for some time. Standard issue. I think it's leather on trhe outside with thick blue corduroy lining and some heavy padding between the ext and the lining. I used to drape it over my ACL and it was very effective. The brass zipper has a patina on it but works properly. May need a bit of teflon. Let me know if you are interested, I'll think of a price. Gregg, viz(at)xtra.co.nz

When I compared prices a few months ago Park road were charging NZ 0.45/ft (almost US 0.38/ft). There was a lab in LA charging US 0.13/ft and I saw a lab near NY offer someone US 0.11/ft. So I think there has been good motivation to ship film out of NZ for processing for a while. The customs scanner issues concern me a bit. There was some discussion about that in a recent thread. Are you in Auckland or Wellington? Cheers, Gregg

I googled "compare zeiss Kowa Ultra T Cooke S16" and saw an interesting thread on Reduser http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?84386-CP-ULTRA-T*-(-BY-KOWA-)-SWEET-SPOTS which may point back to some of the threads on Cinematography.com.

There have been interesting threads in the past on very similar questions, comparisons between Kowa, Zeiss, Cooke and I remember some good test footage for Kowa (Ultra T) S16 primes. Can't remember how to find it.

It's my day for making mistakes. I'll just repaste my text here. The old angenieux are noticably softer than the old Zeiss Say Ang 12-120 vs Zeiss 10-100 T3.1 (thought they were T3.1, but obviously not, or not all). If that Zeiss on eBay is in good shape then I think it's a good price. Normally people prefer the coated (T*) version. To make use of the cheap but good primes you need to sort the mount options. There are Arri B adapters for CP. There was one cheap on eBay a few weeks ago. I don't know if there are Arri S adapters. If there are, or if one could be made, then there are some quite good old primes that are cheap now. Schneider. Cook Kinetals, but Kinetals are designed to rotate in the lens port to focus.

Some typo of mine and my post all looks like a quite from Zac. Everything below the highlighted link is me.

What would that mean? Randomized photosites (position and scale) ? Photosensitive elements that can map a photon distribution rather than take an average value?

I watched the interview with the DoP patiently explaining the rational for the different looks in different locations. To my eye these differences were too gross. The core narrative interweaves all these notional locations and having a more consistent look would have glued the movie together better. I did really enjoy the movie. I like the idea of 16mm as a production medium and i really admire his approach with testing and experimentation. But I really don't think the grossly different looks, 35 vs 16 to notionally separate Hollywood, CIA, Iran was a great idea at all. Definitely not the kind of embedded defect that Best Picture should allow.

I felt a lot of the scenes set in Iran had what looked like over sharpened grain. Especially noticable with some ECUs of faces in the embasy apartment at night. It was quite distracting for me. I would have prefered watching a softer image, more natural looking grain. Why didn't he just shoot the core narrative on 3 perf and use 16mm and super 8 for the the newscamera and personal stuff being shot? Edit: Will posted the video while I wrote that. I'll see if everything is explained in that.

Back in art school most disciplines used to spend one day a week in life drawing class. I had a good friend who kept going with that after he went into the film program and swore it was really useful My idea is that it develops the co-ordination, integration of eye-mind-hand. It sort of teaches you to see.