Gregg MacPherson

The Beaulieu R16 stripped down with a small prime lens is small and light, quite usefull. I found it hard to clean the gate easily. They are fairly noisy, though you can get a little pilotone signal generator to shoot sync.. It would be a great camera to wrap in many layers of bubble wrap and throw into the mosh pit, or bolt to an aircraft wing etc. There are several quiet running shoulder mounted cameras that you will see for sale. Lower cost ones first, based on the price trends. If I have the order a bit wrong it doesn't matter much. CP-16R, Eclair NPR, ACL1, ACL1.5, ACL2, Aaton LTR, Arri SR 2. You may not find an LTR or an SR2 easily for under $2000, but I have seen it happen. Like I said before, the price doesn't mean much without knowing what service it has had and what costs are comming.

Hey Ethan, I was going to say things like how it's commonly easier to learn all the technology and skills required than it is to hold onto the slender thread of creative intention that made it all begin. Of course, now I have said that...... I think Tarkovsky, properly recognized offers a beggining point, at least for an artist. If the world that he saw, imagined and implied is real then it's an inexhaustible well spring. And the forms you find will not necessarily look like his forms. A quick google shows that there are maybe lots of film makers in Victoria BC. If you join CINEVIC then you will get a Bolex or an Eclair NPR for free. My advice is to join, meet some people, just ignore the fact thet they may all be raving about the Scarlet and the Tarantino style film or horror film they want to make. There will be one or two artists in there. Find someone about to shoot on film and help on their project. Doesn't matter what you do as long as you are near the thing you are interested in

Hey Joseph, When you were looking for 35mm stock from the 70s (?) recently, were you looking for stock that was frozen, hopefully useable? What's the project? Are you going to use smaller guage stock to try and replicate or make a style reference to the feel of 35mm stock from that era?

Jay's BL (scroll up) is a good price with those prime lenses. But only get a BL if you aren't doing hand held. You can get view finders that let you put the BL camera on your shoulder, but if you want hand held then you should try a couple of different cameras out to see how they compare. If you are patient on eBay some good deals come up in your price range. You have to be aware of the service history and what costs are comming, who can service it for you or fix problems.

Prefix this with me saying that I'm not trained or experienced in interpreting MTF data relative to grain to get a satisfactory feeling (intuitive explanation) about percieved sharpness. I overlaid those Kodak MTF graphs for 5203 (50D) and 5219 (500T) and the B, G response of 5219 is noticably higher from 20cycles/mm. At 50cycles/mm, quite a big difference, (10% and 20% for Green, Blue. Is there a simple way to understand this? Does larger grain make it easier to maintain those higher MTF values? I often wonder why Kodak MTF graphs always seem to stop at 80cycles/mm. For 16mm, lenses that can resolve 200 lp/mm have been in common use since the 80s. I followed the technician looking at a set of MKII Zeiss recently and all but one looked extremly crisp at 200 lp/mm. I don't know what % value I could put on it, very close to black and white.

I was looking at the early part of this interview. Peter Jackson discusses 'The Hobbit' . Director Peter Jackson spoke with Hero Complex contributor John Horn at Comic-Con International in July, just before announcing that the two-film adaptation of "The Hobbit" would become a trilogy. He's definately the lead lemming for the new. Paraphrasing him........There is no eye strain with 48fps apparently, you just have to get used to it. And if the industry is going in this direction then he / we just need(s) to go with it. (paraphrasing him....these are not my thoughts). At arounf 5-00 minutes is he equating the Epic at 4k pixels to 65mm film or is he just talking about the size of the camera rigs (3D vs 65mm)? In the year 2525.........

Ethan, In which direction did your thoughts go ? Cheers, Gregg.

Fuji UK are still showing really low prices http://www.filmstockclearance.com/

Post 12 There are two ideas there. The first idea, that the "interaction between the photons and the material structure of the actor is changing the physicality of both photon and actor". I qualified that idea later in my Post 8. It's late and I'm tired so I'll quote that. "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." The second idea, "that the microscopic contains functional principals of the macroscopic. I'm thinking that each single microscopic interaction somehow encodes a snapshot of the macroscopic, at that moment." Perhaps this is what you are asking about, whether I believe in the statement. Again this opens into two parts. The first part paraphrases a quite ancient principal that the microcosm is a contained expression of the macrocosm. I guess one could say this was part of my philosophy and I believe it, yes. The next part is an intuitive extension. The idea that each interaction between a photon and the actors skin is an event that somehow encodes an expression of the macrocosm at that moment.in time. A very fascinating idea to me. I believe in it enough to explore the possibility. Some of these ideas may seem esoteric or seem inaccessible without being a quantum physicist or Unified Field theorist. But the basic value of ideas in my original and subsequent posts can be taken without reference to that stuff. Cheers, Gregg

Just looked at their website. They are about the same price as ones I had seen on eBay. On Cristmas special for $99 at the moment (smiling)

George, I wrote a few posts following the first one that attempt to expand on the ideas and offer others. May be useful if you are interested. To be clear, I think a vast amount of information is "lost in translation" (actually just plain lost) as soon as light arrives at a pixel. It's true that conscious "seeing" is selective or conditioned and subconscious "seeing" with some value to art can be assumed for any media. But no, the implication that any media might offer the same degree of usefulness in this respect is wrong. Digital represents a crude simplification. This is one of my core ideas. After 100 years of conditioning from seeing film we are at a point where the conditioning from seeing digital is taking over. The fact that people in the cinema may not see the difference is a tragic indicator.

Post 11 I'm not really convinced you actually read that. (smiling) The idea of the photons making lively interaction with the actors skin then arriving at your retina to make a similar interaction you? Made no impression? Isn't film something analogous to the retina? While digital is not? I think we as a society have a kind of cultured inability to register these ideas or to see the value in them. The ultimate potential of a film emulsion may come close to having the photon as its basic image unit. So an incredible density of information is possible. While conscious objective perception uses only a fraction of the available information, we are subconsciously receptive to much more. All this information may play a part in our evolving sense of self and our ability to experience. Pixels on a sensor are sometimes described as photon buckets or counters. If we look at a pixel on a "4K" S35 sized sensor with (pixel) area of 35 square microns. On a bright day in the shade (1000Lux) we have 3.3million photons per 1/60 second arriving at the pixel (1). This is just averaged. So whatever subtlety was expressed by the relative value and distribution of those photons.....is gone. Yes, techos or geeks will speak up about it, also hopefully, artists, poets philosophers, film makers and hopefully some people identified with the main stream film industry. (1) Warren Marrs, Photon Behaviour, http://warrenmars.com/photography/technical/resolution/photons.htm

Hey Ethan, When someone new seems identified with Tarkovsky, I have hope. Most everyone else is traveling in the opposite direction. Tarkovsky had a natural but deeper than normal sense of life and experience. What lies beneath the surface (of life) is a kind of magic and his poetic sense in film was allowing a more direct access to that (for the viewer). But what does it mean when someone feels an "aesthetic" connection with his work? Are they identified with the underlying perceptivity, the window into life itself, or are they fascinated by the forms? Are they intuitively engaged with the philosophy or are they just being eclectic, preparing to borrow or paraphrase a "look"? As an entry point for an artist to begin his exploration of film? Maybe those differences don't matter, as long as the feeling is sincere. On a practical level. Do you already have some projects in mind of defined duration, scale or budget? If you are self funded and don't have any experienced helpers then you have a huge amount to learn in order to execute even a small project, regardless of medium. If becoming the cinematographer is critical to your creative process then maybe a period of exploration, learning, testing. Start by borrowing a 16mm Bolex, allow yourself 100' of film and shoot some short tests of your actor friends in costume, in character, in the environments or sets. Read a bit about lighting, but follow your feeling rather than a formula, get some advice, keep it really simple. You can do an enormous amount with a small number of simple lights, diffusion screens and flags (to cut light). As I gather you have realized, 16mm is a cheaper format to work in than 35mm. There's lots of opinion on different threads about the relative usefulness of different cameras. All the cameras can be cheap now, but you need one that has ben properly maintained. Reactivate one of those threads and ask lots of questions. See if you can borrow a camera, or visit someone who has cameras and experience who can help you learn. Maybe they can help execute one of your projects. I don't know if it makes common sense to approach the profound value of Tarkovsky with digital. It seems ironic. I started writing something relevant to that in this thread .......Film vs Digital. Impact on Art, Culture, Experience, http://www.cinematog...wtopic=58446= Where are you located? What access do you have to labs, rental houses, film editing equipment, experienced film makers, cinematographers? My writing here is a bid patchy, but your post effectively prompts a lot of diverse streams of information. Hard to know where to start. Cheers, Gregg. PS: I'm mostly thinking about The Mirror, Nostalghia, The Stalker, but yes Bergman's wonderfull Fanny and Alexander, Ok, but Kubrik is a bit dry and intellectual to include here (for me). Edit: Added PS

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.