Gregg MacPherson

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.

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.