Gregg MacPherson

Post 9 Joseph, You're very polite. Thanks for that. So here's to better spelling and grammar. Can't make any promises. I do a basic check for spelling and grammar, but sometimes strict grammar doesn't quite allow the rhythm of our thoughts. It's a forum, so I guess I allow myself that. Other times it may just be bad grammar. Regarding the relative level of writing or thinking in play. I don't think I have an assumption about that. Amongst the ideas offered is the proposition that human awareness is becoming progressively conditioned to prefer the objective over the subjective. The world looks increasingly more like a collection of small discrete units and we loose sight of whatever glues all that together. Relationship, wholeness, consciousness itself.......If I'm right, then simple recognition of this is difficult in the modern world. It requires the intellect to traverse toward more subtle subjective states. Or that subjectivity simply be more vital, in which case my proposition may just seem like common sense. Modern humans may not easily have a common language that makes it easy to consider issues in this zone, but the underlying ideas are ancient. So I'm trying to use words that may help trigger simple recognition, words that may be useful and consistent later on. I overheard a friend once joke that marketing people try to "borrow your watch to tell you the time". Pulling that out of context, I'm looking forward to someone telling me "gimme back my watch....I already knew that". Probably he didn't, but that's often the way it feels. Thinking of the turkey as media metaphor. Just as GE soya in the tofu turkey may pose risk to the human genetic code, digital technology poses a huge risk with its conditioning of human experience. So while some value of art in the cooking or art in digital media is still enabled, the danger or risk is there. With digital, this issue has basically been ignored. The coexistence issue. Even if the cinemas kept their projectors, we are overwhelmingly exposed to digital images, hence very exposed to the conditioning process. This conditioning process is affecting film makers and perhaps especially cinematographers. So I see coexistence as almost impossible. I see instead small islands of resistance. I always think that artists will be the last refuge of common sense that will keep film alive. But there are (lets say) two kinds of artists. The first kind, deeply sensing the coming chaos, has an ecstatic experience painting the inferno so to speak. The other kind, absorbed in something more wonderful, enabled that experience in us and maybe this held the chaos at bay. Worst case scenario. Anarchic artists with no compassion working in film with ideas and form that helps us all slide into the crapper (funny but sad). But, digging as deep as I've got, I don't know what's really going to happen or how long it will take. I'm more optimistic that my words suggest. I just read Matthew's post. Things are getting so (expletive) polite around here. Take a bow Joseph, maybe you started that.

Hey Simon, I'm guessing that 12-120 is a f2.2/T2.5 , something like that? Red vs white markings on the aperture ring? Using the series 9 holder with a round rubber sunshade was the common way with that lens. If you use a Cokin P system what shade options do you have? 3x3 filters are cheap now on eBay. They are ok with that zoom. Series 9 I think are fairly cheap now also. Back in the day (cue misty eyed memory) I found heaps of good cheap 72mm screw ons. At 12mm stopped down I was just starting to vignette in the corners. I used my series 9 holder as a base for a home made round sunshade, but most of the time I used a light weight 3x3 matbox. I commonly used the 72mm rounds in the box in front of Scneider primes. If you go series 9 let me know, I may have that kit for sale. viz(at)xtra.co.nz

Is an office chair no good? Just tried a chair here, very slick bearings, smooth, feet just hanging felt ok. Is higher than normal with no arms or back but maybe that's not relevant.

Oh must you? Joseph, I just read that again. Maybe I was too generous. So getting into the feisty mode of those running the large emotive sidebar in this thread...... I think you're being sarcastic, yes? You think my text is just pseudo-intellectualism? Perhaps it seems like that in comparison to your own post, in a down home syle that never extended beyond the cooking turkey as media metaphor.

Post 8 Hey Peter, I'm sympathetic to your thoughts about the "idea" and "story". I tried to bring up a theme on "story" before on the forum but I may not have tried very hard. The thread was called Poetry...Story...Bladerunner...Prometheus..... Here in the Film vs Digital thread we may have an idea or word in common that we are each using or loading with meaning in an opposite sense. The word "object", for example the "photochemical object" in your text. I'm suggesting that the photographic object transcends it's own objectness and enables more refined direct experience. Digital imaging is a "crude" oversimplification that enhances it's own object value and disables the direct enlivenment of more subtle subjective values. I would like to see a thread or two that just focused on the issues to do with story. Subject lines like: Story vs Simple Continuity of Useful Experience (in films) or Story vs Idea ...... etc, with vs meaning a comparison.. I might start a thread with the first of those titles when I get a chance. The title may have said enough. Maybe the only absolute is that we have some useful experience, some anticipated pleasure or a contact with something that we think is valuable. People are very invested in a notion of "story", but I'm not really sure what story is. Is it a ubiquitous notion. When character takes over what should we call it? When a single emotion or a mix of emotions takes over what should we call it. Or an overwhelming poetic quality? Often there may be a narrative layer remaining, existing to serve some other layer of experience, a feeling. Most of the great films that are dear to me are not dominated by narrative. So what do we really mean by "story". (rhetorical question). I think "story" may be the defacto word that people use trying to suggest whatever potent glue that's actually holding a film together. And sometimes that's really hard to put your finger on. Suppose a film has the same function as a shaman at the campfire, leading his audience from one condition of experience to the next with their willing participation. Such a sophisticated process, so many layers of experience. I can't simply call that story telling. But if I chose to, then I guess the word "story" again becomes very loaded. Now, modern people are far removed from this "shaman at the campfire" context in the literal sense. Our style of awareness is now grossly over-objectified and the common use of the word story means narrative, along with some feint yearning for the simple wholeism of the past. The Film vs Digital, Impact on Art, Culture, Human Experience thread. To borrow some of my own text, I'm trying to find .......the right language to intuitively traverse between (ideas of) common objective observation, non conscious reception of visual information and subtle states of conscious awareness. The sequence of interactions that occur between photons and object then photons and eye or emulsion could be considered at a very fine level, down to the quantum mechanical level or beyond. This is an intuitive but fairly safe and useful descriptive idea. To be fair, when I go on to say or infer that the photons effectively carry encoded information on the quantum level from their interaction with the actor, that is a speculative notion of mine. While this is a direction I would like to explore, it may not be vital to my theme at the basic level. Light interacts with the actors skin. The basic unit is the photon. Very tiny . So a very detailed map. Ariving at the retina this finely detailed map is draped onto the rods and cones. A rod or cone, for instance, is not just a "photon bucket" as pixels are sometimes likened to, or a photon counter. A photon is tiny compared to a rod or cone. So my intuitive idea about it is that multiple photons map their part of the image over an individual rod or cone. They have the potential to behave in the same way when they arrive at a film emulsion. . They don't when they arrive at a digital sensor. And so on.......Ideas about the relevance of this to the more subtle states of human awareness, hence art, culture. Cheers, Gregg.

Dom, I had to google to catch up on what that meant. Is that the slightly cruel version or the empathetic version, like the "I've been there" feeling. Actually it's been a simple, fun and not expensive exercise sofar, just letting the bits fall into place in their own time. But if I was in a hurry I think it would feel very different. The threaded home for the treaded insert is about 12mm deep. I'm thinking the acetone will not get into all that thred length easily. Probably will cut my way in. They still make these legs. I saw them for sale on B&H for almost US$1000. Or you can buy what looks like a Proaim copy for about 150 ex India. Thanks, Gregg.

Does anyone know how to remove the treaded insert (sst12e0110)? It's the part that the lock screw itself screws into. It's threaded inside and out and may be glued with Locktight into the threaded sleeve in the plastic part. My guess is I will have to cut away the plastic and cut the sleeve lengthwise to break it off the threaded insert. If I need to remove the blind roll pin (d148103161) holding the plastic thumb screw. The only idea I had was to drill a hole in the plastic the pin and pull it out. Cosmetics are not really a big deal. Any better ideas? I had another chat to Gary at Panavision Auckland but it is a long time since he has done one of these. I attached the schematic showing those parts but it does not seem to show. I may try again. Thanks for any ideas. Gregg. PS the plastic to aluminum joints separated easily. General purpose thinners (couldn't find the acetone) were dripped onto the edge of the joint several times, left an hour or so, then the plastic parts were just tapped off. I saw two different types of glue, one greyish looking type that filled the ribs in the plastic. One would think that the solvent would not get much access, but I think there was some softening.

Just so we're clear about my puck table narrative, that puck that whizzed of at high speed was not you. I was making a joke about someone else. A puck that whizzed off at high speed could be considered a light weight and so on. Are you still working in the mechatronics field? Does that mean designing, building or driving dinosaurs? The drivers in their little vehicles are a really cool but wierd thing, until you sort of flick a switch in your head and they disappear. If you're busy we can chat about that another time.

(signaling a short, off topic humorous post) Come the dystopian future, when the film survivalists are hiding literally underground in fear of their lives, real men will not use scanners! Just saying that word would make you look like a confused soul who didn't know which way their schtick was pointed. In that illegal underground society there were only human women, no cyborgs allowed. Never a truer word spoken in jest. The schtick=dick joke was funnier when you used it.

Is that a puck table joke? Do you think we can model the human interactions here with basic mechanics. Some complex collisions lately. A minor collision and one puck whizzed off at high speed. Implication, assuming conservation of momentum.... ? Now did that puck bounce back or is there some serious gravitas around here. My laugh batteries are waining

If it's a difficult read I'm genuinely appologetic. I have been working really hard to try and avoid that. I think the concepts are not really hard, it just may need skill (with words) to triger recognition of them. You could try asking a question.

Matthew, Even when I'm finding some interesting, unique creative value in your post, trying to be genuinely complimentary, and apologetic for any offence I might have unintionally caused......you take offence? You take offence very easily. Self parody? Just plain silly. Diversions from topic? Well I had a couple of humorous exchanges with Chris Millar, trying to keep that part very short, and moving straight back to the core of my idea.. The only clear diversion from the original intention was a response to Marcus Joseph. The reason for responding to him was that he probably represented a huge segment of the film industry that were completely incognizant of my idea and uninterested. A unique opportunity. Some local humor required there. For now I side stepped the references to photons or quantum physics. Pseudo-philosophical rants? Well, no. Apart from some slight difficulty finding the right language to intuitively traverse between common objective observation, non conscious reception of visual information and subtle states of conscious awareness, I can't find anything wrong. How else can we explore more deeply the value or not of these various media to human beings? Meaning also the risk. Lets say that last question was not rhetorical. Let's call it a direct challenge. Are the imagined dystopian futures what you are referring to? We have a process of rapid change that we are normalized to and I think the rate of change is increasing. And sudden surges of seemingly specialized change are possible beyond that. The idea of a hybrid cyborg as a life partner is I hope just an imaginative fantasy. I hope my grandchildren do not live to see it happen. Does modern technology look capable of evolving at that speed? Probably. Do modern humans seem able to evolve socially to a point where they would want or accept it. I'm thinking yes. We of this time may disapprove of that future. The idea is an ugly shock. A useful analogy. That's the way it was used. Whatever else is wrong? No idea at all.

Good god man, lighten up. Are you not finding any of this funny? I apologize if I am too quick onto things that should just be ignored. But the horse vs car comparison....metaphors, seeming ass backwards, was a really interesting thing. Pointing finger to the heavans. The horse vs car one was more like pointing finger in the wrong direction, at least by what I guessed would be a common or common sense response. Although I made fun, it was very intriguing. Please take that as a complement.

Thay would read "work is good". Sorry, I get caught with the short window for editing a lot. Normally with posts that are short and had no spell check.

Work us good, Money can give us the freedom to read, think, write, do. (why didn't I think of that). By having a "fist fight off K'rd " do you mean like inviting those 48hour weaners. If so, no thanks. Otherwise yea, ping me when in Auckland and we could meet up. Maybe a beer or come over and chat. viz(at)xtra.co.nz. Fist fight on K'rd....(Bevis and Buthead noises)....you (expletive) provocateur. Jus sayun.

Jolly good, so we're all OK then. Both good blokes and all that. But we've added more language that may be seriously misunderstood. The gap between the literal meaning and the intendedly humorous meaning is huge. You can add the Red forum and the DVXUser forums to the list of things I honestly don't have a position or opinion on. Sometimes I have Googled research and found useful things there. Often only useful by inference, but inference is a powerful tool. The fact of the intensly partisan social behaviour that one sees, the fan boy thing, I never thought much about it. I never engaged it. I have a principal that I highly regard (don't always follow).. A good idea (or the thing that trigers it) can come from anywhere. So in terms relevant to you, even from that black and red den of iniquity, the Reduser forum. Sometimes a good idea is hidden, you have to look for it. Sometimes the looking is the external value, maybe just a trigger and the idea happens internally. . Now to things that actually matter (to me). How do I get people to think about the layers of stuff that they "see" unconciously through their eyes. The way that this unconsciously ingested information is an integral part of how they form and exercise their finer values of conscious awareness. The relevance to all creativity...film vs digital etc. FIK (guess on that acronym but do not disclose the answer here)

I'm gradually getting a sense of your unique perspective. Power of car (vs horse)......power of film (vs digital) to evoke emotion......power of car (vs horse) to evoke emotion. So a car evoking a more potent emotional responses than a horse? Perhaps we have already arived at that dystopian future I suggested on the Fvs D thread. A cyborg spouse will evoke a greater emotional response than a human one.

Riding what? Does this mean I can safely call you a nob? There is a Matthewising of reality going on here, where after a quick look you take up a reactive position. I say, defend only what's valuable. And make sure the thing you are reacting to is real. Riding Deakins whatsit, thinking he's a god, etc and soforth: False, false and false. As I said before, I barely knew about Deakins or his work 'till I stumbled into that website. Imagine if you will (make an effort), me arriving there with no precepts or expectations whatsoever. Saw he shot a couple of films that I had really enjoyed (as film experiences). Interesting. Saw that a lot of the people there were devotees. From another position, people may call them "fanboys", but I had (still have) no position about that. I saw that he actually seemed reasonably humble and aunaffected, and gave a lot of practical tips to the other cinematographers. It's quite useful to hear descriptions of how something was lit after having just seen or recently seen it in the cinema (for example). My guess is that one could gain something from reading a forum like that even if one disliked Deakins or his work. Or the Alexa or whatever was causing offence. In conclusion, I have no real position on Deakins, the fan club, Skyfall or the Alexa. Please just register those facts. Bad boy, go ride your own schtick.

Matthew, Are these metaphors in your illustration, ass bacwards, back to front. To me a horse seems a far more sophisticated thing than a motor car. In terms of the palpable experience enjoyed with it. I's alive, organic in vastly many more ways that a motor car can be. Due to the motor car, humanity all but lost the horse. So the horse should represent film. No?

Again the editing function disappers too fast for me. Marcus, you may think me too critical or too much of a piss taker already, but I meant to add....... PS: There is plenty of art that is over 200 years old. Get out more, look around at a museum or on the internet.

Post -1 (negative 1) Hey Marcus, I had your post flagged to respond to. Responses are infrequent on the core value of the idea I posted so I might as well have some fun exploring the more expressed values on offer (signal to Chris Millar. Meaning of the word value may vary). I'm going to pretend that you actually read what I wrote on page 1. Marcus, don't take any of this personally. No one cares about the format? Yes! Does this validate anything? No. If we all end up eating GE food because no one gave a stuff either way, would this change the practical dangers posed by GE? No! In exactly the same way, whatever danger is posed to the style of functioning of human seeing, and whatever danger is posed to art and the popular arts (duh, cinema), by the march of digital technology, whether we notice this danger has nothing to do with the damage it may do. Unless we resist it. Please just pause and consider that before attacking the keyboard. Professionals working in the mainstream, legitimate film industry must adapt. They have a vested interest in adapting. There will be some who will adapt but are fully aware of what we have lost or are about to loose.. There are others (naive twats IMHO) who will say we have lost nothing. We could tiptoe around this in politic fashion, but then one of these twats boldly expresses, I'm guessing, expressing it for a huge segment of the industry, that these differences between film vs digital are irrelevant. I wrote somewhere before, an imagined future where our life partners have all been mandatorily replaced by hybrid cyborgs, because, if you itemize all the required functions, they performed better than an equivalent human spouse. The style of human awareness today is rapidly evolving to a condition where this would be possible and acceptable, or accepted. To happen it requires a serious depletion of our ability to "see" beneath the obvious, our ability to use a more universal common sense. Like now, with the march of digital and the apparent demise of film, there would be small islands of dissent. And there would be some who would say, go ahead, just enjoy, bonk, whatever, no-one cares whether it's a human or a cyborg. So, using some really basic, crude humor that I am sure an Australian will get....are you (meaning would you be), a rubber doll rooter or not? (rubber doll = cyborg). Nothing personal whatsoever, just the business of tying to vitalize ideas that seem really important. And the humor. Well, we may loose film, but if we loose our sense of humor then what are we? (.......more jokes about the cyborgs)

When I suggested Raj jump onto Deakins forum I was actually serious. This was provided that he was really sincere and respectfull. But if his reaction to the cinematography in skyfall doesn't go much deeper than finding it hideous then there is not much point. The fans there probably would just (insert joke).

Raj, Go back to your original post and take a lesson on having "something nice to say". Meaning it was actually a lesson of the opposite kind. I already attempted to explain that my jokes were trying to deflect what might have been some serious negative responses to you on the forum. It was crude humor, but well within the bounds of acceptable behavoure on this forum. (thanks Gregg.....you're welcome Raj) So Skyfall is now a "good movie" with "hideous" cinematography and so on. I'm really starting to take you seriously now. More humor, irony. And I am "arrogant". Maybe I'm like like Bond? Well, he does have six pack abs (good muscles on his tummy) and is quite compassionate for an assassin. But I think by now he would have exercised his licence to kill. Good luck trying to understand humor in the English language. (Edit) Or finding a sense of humor of any kind.

PS: But a human trying to persuade lemings as they stampede for the cliff...? Useful but hilarious metaphor.

Freya, Rather than a horse, lets think of it as a large number of lemmings heading over the cliff. They haven't all jumped yet, and some that have may yet land safely. What does one do when one sees this happening. Maybe call out to say it's a mistake. They don't have to jump. The changes towards greater objectivity and reduced subtlety that are occurring in the style of perception, the style of awareness of human beings is bad. A negative thing. Ditto the current version of digital evolution, for the reasons given before. To comment honestly on that is to probably, vigorously oppose it. Is it the academic argument over this that poses too many negatives? Or is it the sense that the future that people had intuited for themselves within this new digital age is challenged and some doubt may come up as to it's foundation. But the invitation was only that. If it feels negative and crap to talk about, so be it. No pressure or worries about it. The issue of film compared to digital, with reference to the finer layers of human experience (and this has a lot to do with art and culture). I don't think this has been discussed before. Actually I didn't do a proper search. My assumption was intuited from the overall tone and flavor of interactions on the forum. There was a moment on the forum where I tried to point to subjective values of experience in the cinema, some experiments measuring alpha vs beta wave activity in subjects watching film vs digital cinema. If that activity (or the lack of) on the forum, covers these issues by your estimation then I am a horses ass. (fart noises). The potential growth, death or various morphings of the main stream cinema is one thing. Yes it has a lot to do with how people try to make money. People in the main stream industry will have concerns about this and a vested interest in simple adaption. I worry about artists and the work that might otherwise have crossed over into the mainstream. The rise of digital will compromise certain categories of artist who would otherwise have nurtured conditions of experience among receptive sectors of humanity. Some would like to defend their opportunity to work. All questions in there are rhetorical (cue smiling)