Gregg MacPherson

I just read your other post and realize I probably misread you. Your peak current draw is 5-7A, yes? What I was suggesting basically stays the same. What is a common battery capacity for those cameras? (Ah or mAh) I did quite a lot of operating with a separate battery. I actualy liked it better. It made the camera lighter. But if you don't like that then the gell cells are maybe too heavy, so you have to make up some NiCads or NiMhi packs.

If you don't have any familiarity with really basic electrical stuff then the cheapest option is probably the 12V gell cell (bike battery). You can put it in a bum bag (money belt). Maybe a smaller one if you don't really need 5-7Ah ? If you are just exploring on your own then naving two batteries is probably ok. Having only one can be a real pain. Making up packs is quite easy if you have some basic experience with electrinocs, soldering etc. Normally the cells were soldered together. You can get cells with little metal tabs so the soldering is easier, safer. Find out what Ah people commonly have for an on board battery pack, then you can see what cells suit and how to wire them.

Do you have a normal URL for that. I couldn't make that work. Thanks.

I can't momentarily think of a more poignant example of confusion between the particular and the universal. All sorts of odd accidents or paths can lead us to somewhere useful. For some, repetitious mediocrity or worse may be the required path while they learn the value of completion. So what. Let's not get this confused with a universal principal. In fact, by confusing it with such, some harm could come. What if young folk read that and think it's true. Actually I'm not even sure that Matthew thinks it's true. Matthew W. Philips on the approach to film making with film media (1) "....That approach is about discipline, dedication, mastery of one's work, and that unsettling drive to pursue greatness the first time around...." So which one is it, mastery or mediocrity. Are we encouraging people to reach for greatness or are we encouraging them to make mediocre or bad films just for the sake of completing them? This sort of duality does seem a bit "vacuous". I'm not surprised at all that Chris Millar "spat the dummy". This issue has real significance because what we say (write) and how we express it will affect the enquiring minds that read it. Some are at high school, like Jia who started this thread. So what is the best way to learn about motion pictures and evolve The answer may be different depending on whether one is identified with film as art vs film as some layer in the main stream. But maybe not so different. I vote for the model where people reach for the impossible, making films that are as personal and personally meaningful as possible. With short films the technical risks, the risk of failure or non completion should be acceptable. Some would say the same about features. Take a look at Eisenstein, most of his films were not completed. Was the risk worth it? Quibble about that. We have already a vast amount of mediocre film product. Why make more? I'm wondering if the supposed democratizing of film making is a source of this confusion. Every newcomer wants to be a director or a DoP. This is an obvious misstep that digital has helped facilitate. .I think the solution for emergent film makers is actually quite simple. People should gravitate to the brightest talent and the best idea they can find. Help create that film. Then step off to the next thing from there. Learn method and skills while trying to develop or execute great or exquisite ideas. Some people believe they can develop method, skill and working relationships first, after which the necessary talent will just somehow manifest itself. I think, when it comes to a general or more universal principal, I believe the opposite. (1) Film vs Digital. Impact on Art, Culture, Experience, page 1, 5th Dec, 2012. http://www.cinematog...topic=58446&hl= Edit: added reference.

Start by reading accurately. Try to get the real sense of what was written and why. If you feel completely undeserving of being tagged with that vulgar metaphor then I guess you can complain to the moderator(s). While you're there, explain to them the possible interpretations of "riding Deakins' schtick", in context. For me I thought that was a great laugh, but then I have a sense of humour, and it showed me that perhaps you had one too, at least when you're dishing it out. But on the face of it, unacceptably vulgar. Put that man on report! So calling out Chris seems a bit hypocritical.

I think you are misreading him. When he says "oh for gawds sake you're so special" he is being sarcastic, suggesting that you think you are above others, while he disagrees. Your reading of it seems a bit of an odd stretch.

With the amount of reactive huff and puff posturing on your part I'm not surprised that someone "spat the dummy". If you read his post, he didn't call you retarded. He called you a "vacuous ballsack". I think he's just exasperated by repetitious exposure. That wasn't a sudden shift. There has been almost no hope whatsoever of discussing Skyfall on this thread, but that was looking obvious from the get-go. It has however been an interesting ride exploring a small, odd niche in human nature. At least we kept some of the weird stuff in one place.

No worries David. Not reading the ideas in the start post(s) has been quite common.

The Cooke 10.4-52 focuses down to 1'-6". If you don't mind working about 8" from the front element then your extreme closeup can be more than 50% bigger than that possible with the Zeiss 11-110. And basically no breathing. I know you probably know that already Dom, I'm just sticking up for Cooke. There was a 10-30 T1.6 on eBay a few months ago. Can't remember the price. Sold quickly.

To be mature about it (hilarious laughter). Check out the new photo under Alexander P's name. Good to see he has a sense of humour.

So we gather the boozing is going well and you are referencing Mel Gibson's movie, Apocolypto.

I still feel Matthew's metaphors were backwards. Horse should represent film. Having the metaphor with effectively a switched polarity was maybe an intriguing start point for some creative writing but was misleading here. The Master doesn't come to New Zealand till 17th Jan. I don't know if I will be able to see it on film. I think most big cinemas have converted (yes, like a negative religious reference - they lost faith). I don't think very positively of There Will Be Blood as a thing qualifying the director. I found that a quite grinding, ugly character study. The Master, what I can see in the trailers, looks a wonderful idea and is wonderful looking. Have you read those other post where I talk about the way digital is conditioning our style of seeing? This has been going on for a while with our computer screens, then TV screens. But the cinema is or was a more sacred experience for most people. Even at the most crude level, eating popcorn and enjoying the event as a social experience, we have had a style of seeing that has been cultured for about 100 years. Now almost gone.

I'm no expert on astronomy, but I gather it's not an obvious line up of planetary bodies that we can see. The sun arrives at an intersection point between two notional lines or axes. Quoting from this page http://www.exitmundi.nl/Maya.htm "...The Sun will sit precisely on the heavenly crossroads between the Milky Way and the galactic equinox, forming a perfect alignment with the center of the galaxy....." There's a reassuring read there also about the Mayan calendar.

There is supposed to be some very rare planetary alignment, but I don't know the exact moment of that. If the rotation of the earth and our circadian rhythms (day/night/day) count for much I don't know either. One could think (cue humour) that New Zealand went through the 21st and popped out the other side already, intact. Time zone 1. Edited for spelling

Hey guys ! (calling out like in the playground at school)....Fresh mud ! (and a fresh ego ?) What kind of enlightenment did you expext to find under the title "syfall was bad movie" ?

Just reading you and adding a couple more things (not watching it again so what I "saw" hasn't changed). The actor giving the monologue had the feel of theatre, a play. I didn't so much feel that from the "set", the way the environment was treated. It's quite comon for short films to be cocooned by their physical environment. So I didn't feel that. I got the Western reference with the title, but when the monologue began the title suddenly seemed ironic, something less interesting than the very real sense of the voice (refering to the voice before the actor is seen speaking). On your 16mm shoot you were doing too many jobs at once. Can't you get some help? Also, the cutting ratio is putting the result at risk, yes?

What debate is that? Are you actually reading anything, or did you just drop in, read one post and shoot from the hip. The thread was started by a wannabe pointy head, an idea that he hadn't seen opened up before at all. Then it was taken over by some gladiators who weren't that interested in the original idea. And there are some others floating around also who may not fit either description. So exactly who or what are you directing your response to? Who would know?

Post 10 Hey Will, I just watched your film. Can I just talk about that as a film, without reference to the medium? It begins in a really interesting way, but the title typeface is completely misleading to me. The emotional tone established with the voice over (what I thought was going to be a voice over) felt mature, like this was going to be a really perceptive piece. When it's revealed as a spoken monologue, it became something else. Am I watching a play? I actually held up pieces of paper to the screen to mask selected parts of the image to crudely de-literalize what I was seeing. You are not alone or an isolated case with the approach you have taken. Some might even say you are less literal or obvious than most. The spoken monologue, being a bit overt, may be perceived as something a bit unusual, or cool. If the film has a core idea, were the potential elements of that idea brought out? My pet thought is that most ideas are undeveloped. And there is some kind of weird attachment to the literal in modern emergent film making. Meaning. as an illustration, that if I hear the word "orange" I am either looking at the lips that said that word, or I'm looking at an orange. Theorists / film makers were breaking these boundaries early in the 20th century in a very definitive way. Well, sans a real education, I can say that at least Eisenstein was. So are we going backwards, as a film culture? Thinking about the differences, hands on, working with 16mm vs the digital media that you are used to. The film jam nightmare is an unusual thing. One would normally just get another camera (or another AC or loader). Ignoring that. What do you feel made the job harder? Genuinely curious to know. The video tap is not necessarily an asset on a lean shoot. Unless you are shooting without your eye on the finder you don't really need one. If you are less experienced with film or are trying new things, then you can schedule tests to see what things look like. Having the sense of direct connection to the image through the viewfinder is a pretty amazing thing. You don't have that with digital, unless you accept the pixel array as a "real" image of course (smile)

I never tried S8, but am curious about 16mm. Maybe here in New Zealand, which is (or used to be) a sort of benign democratic socialist country, the Nth Koreans may let us try some LLOL (literally laughing out loud). Thinking of engineers and entrepeneurs in China. They are amazingly good at back engineering anything and putting product into niche markets really fast. In ways and on a (small) scale that would be completely impossible in the west. This is just a laymans quick view of what has been happening for a while. So there may be hope for niche or fringe dwellers who want film. and possibly processing. And they (the Chinese) are not on their own.

Any more info on that produced in China rumour? Was that producing from scratch or just slit. perf, package...?

Maybe Dom can correct me, but the mirror is normally silvered on the outer surface. Really easy to scratch or mess up. Find a camera tech near you who knows film cameras. Same problem with cleaning for all cine cameras. As the price of film cameras falls, the cost of repairs will not (so much). Could also get someone to look at the camera who knows what the mirror looks like in less than perfect condition. If peoiple shooting with those mirrors are ok with that, maybe you should just get used to it. Did you compare the view from the mirror with/without the camera running?

Hey Jia, Tell us a couple of films that you just absolutely love, and a couple of film makers that you absolutely revere. And without thinking much about it, why? It may be that you are someone hungry for the Hollywood model of creative success, or it may be that you are an artist who wants to make films. Plenty of people travel from right to left, begining as artist and beoming something more commercial, normalized, method oriented. Not many travel in the other direction. Or has the world changed? I have special sympathy for artists, so I bring this up. They seem rare and well hidden. The idea about originality. Anything that shifts our common perception of a thing will feel original. Start with the familiar, what you are already intimate with. Something you really care about. Stop worrying. You're young. Just write something or make something (very short). Find what you naturally are good at.

There are a couple of ways to respond to this depending on whether you already have some objectives and boundaries in place. Are you making films about small concerts? A film about a song? Does it feel like a literal record of an event? Can it be flavoured by, or even mostly about, more non literal impressions from the performance? Impressions from outside the performance? Good to think along those lines before buying more gear. If you aren't stuck on the idea of shooting live in a literal way, meaning everything is literally from the performance /environment and in sync, then you have some freedom that you can really enjoy. Have some fun! People have been putting pictures to music in very free ways since forever. No need to go backwards. So have an intense think on what the core idea can be. Is there a creative way to use your sync camera and support that with more expressive, less literal shots from multiple MOS cameras? Do you really need to have one continuous master shot? By default, no, unless the idea for the piece required it. You can make a plan for where that camera can be at any time, a sequence of setups. Also, hand held movements can be coreographed. My advice is to apply some intense, fun thinking before you shoot a piece. Find some core idea that you can then apply all your basic method to. If you draw a blank on that then you may end up with your master camera on a tripod locked off the whole time. A bit sad if you have few resources. So key things that may have big impact. Are you always visually in the performance space? Are expressive visualizations allowed? Ditto for more subtle, reflective images. If you need another sync camera, what is wrong with the non reflex CP (CPA?). It will probably have an Angenieux zoom with a prism finder and you will be stuck with that. CP16Rs are very cheap, just try to get one that's recently serviced. Or have access to a service tech. What lenses are you using on your CP16R? Good luck, Gregg. PS: All questions are rhetorical except the last one.

Dom, That was surpisingly easy in the end. The insert I assumed was glued, no signs showing otherwise. Gave it some heat and it didn't move. But, cutting was quick and easy, then splitting the outer sleeve off the insert. Getting the blind roll pin out was ridiculously easy, I'm embarrassed I asked (sort of). Thanks again for your advice and moral support, Gregg. PS. I saw the huge zoom and MBox on the super8 camera photo. This is you enjoying free access to the rental inventory?

Thanks for that. you just spoiled a perfectly useful metaphore. May have to return to Freya's bolting horse. Destined to become a piece of Disney fiction itself one day.