Gregg MacPherson

Of course, I agree with Darrell. I never spotted any "film is dead" dogma on Deakins site. I did see him often give really practical tips on lighting. He likes redheads and doesn't like LED's so I thought he might be one of the good guys. If he is in fact a significant figuire in the sea change to digital then this is an interesting and maybe important thing to discuss. But, discussing shouldn't be about taking reactive, emotive and over-personalized positions. And Raj shooting his mouth off is almost completely non usefull as a start point (oh crap, now there's another two metaphors I'll have to explain). Intense discussion and even violent dissagreement is OK in my honest opinion. Provided people don't degrade into the ugly personalized stuff. Do you know Deakins as a friend, collegue or adversary well enough to declare that you have no respect for him as a person? That's a rhetorical question. In case you are wondering whether I am an ally or an enemy, I wrote at length some of my thoughts on the differences between the film and the electronic motion picture image here http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=58360&hl= Page 1, scroll to the bottom. I needed more space but thought I was using more than my share. I should have put that as a start point to a new thread. May still do that. Here's to objectivity as a method or backstop. But genuine subjectivity is always OK.

Hey Jeroen, I'm trying to help collect names of ACL service technicians for the useful database. Are there others at ETKON as well? Does Edwin or ETKON have the experience and equipment for major overhauls? Cheers, Gregg.

jeroenvanderpoel (his spelling) listing his ACL II for sale on the cine market place forum mebtioned that his service tech was Edwin Schouten at Etkon (www.etkon.com). Worth adding to the list of techs on the eclair website. Cheers, Gregg.

So, you say the cinematography was "hideous", the "girls were sloppy and ugly" and Bond was "arrogant.....with no emotions". Seemed like a quite agressive tone to me. Regarding the joke(s). Humour is good. Try to culture some.

Just remember, in the history of it, I was the one trying to crack jokes. You're right that there was a chance that Raj wouldn't get the joke, and that maybe Americans wouldn't get it either. Separate thing. There was a thread posted, not sure on category, offering preview of a documentary about a group of Christian missionaries helping/converting a remote tribe in Africa. That thread may have just dissapeared. I wondered if you knew what happened to that thread. Had a hunch you might have been watching the forum and noticed something. Here's to preserving ones sense of humour.

Hey Matthew, It seems to be my lot to be misunderstood. I'm definately not one of the fanboys. I barely consciously knew his work untill I stumbled onto his forum a couple of weeks ago, suddenly realizing that he had shot No Country for Old Men and some others that I have enjoyed. Really open, generous and practical thing he's doing on that forum, but me reading there a few times and that reply to Raj does not make me a fan boy. Raj's tone was quite aggressive. Rather than see him get ripped to shreds I thought some humour might help. Was that joke i lifted from Entourage too obscure, even for someone from Sacramento? The suggestion about Raj visiting Deacons forum may look like a "wind up", a "leg pull" or "piss take", meaning making makin fun of, but I don't see why he couldn't actually do it, assuming he was very respectfull about it. But the tone of his post makes it look like he would have great trouble with that (being respectfull).

Raj, That saying about ripping someone a new (rear end) was a joke. Seeing (hearing) it on Entourage I assumed it had some currency as cool humour in America. So, I was not denegrating Americans, but honouring their sense of humour. Enjoying some humour was an option rather than taking your post too seriously. At least Chris Millar thought it was funny. So did you go there, to Deakins forum? He seems a really open guy. If you disliked his work but were fully respectful about how you approached him there I see no harm. But there are fans there, you should keep your back to the wall.

I don't know the history of these to know when the crack happened. They may not have been used for a while. A guy who was buying them from me was testing his light weight jib on them and reported the crack. I wasn't there. It's possible he grossly overtightened the lock and made the crack without even knowing, So yes that could be a fresh crack. Intuitively. that cracked area is under tension with tension grading higher towerds the outer surface, so I'm not a fan of a glue fix, although I know in practic a rubbery and aggressively sticky epoxy might work. But if highly loaded the glue will just peel or separate from the plastic. Some kind of welding or gluiung prcess where the molecules melt together might be OK. Wrapping something like glass, carbon or a piece of aluminum around the area would do it. The glue joint is then in shear. I'll see what the part costs first. Cheers, Gregg.

Hey Dom, Thanks. I was wondering if you might notice this post. Yea I spotted today that Panavision were agents. They've been quite nice sofar. Didn't get to ask yet. Carbon glued into plastic must have been fun to get out. If the carbon was cured quite hot then I guess you can heat that untill you melt the glue which should be a much lower temp. Even with aluminum legs I worry that the plastic mouldings will overheat. But it must be easier and safer than doing the carbon ones. Does the replacement plastic part come complete with the locking parts or do you normally switch those over?

I have a spare set of Sachtler legs, 100mm bowl, 16mm aluminum legs. One of the plastic brackets with the leg locks has a crack, see photo. The crack doesn't open like that untill the lock is tightened quite hard. Can these be welded? Does anyone know the type of plastic? Alternatively does anyone have this part, used, cheap? If I am removing the aluminum legs from the plastic moldings, is that a glued connection, a tight press fit or something else? Thanks for any advice, Gregg.

Hey Raj, Didn't you post about this before? If you're feeling brave go to Roger Deakins forum and tell him directly. The fans there will probably rip you a new rear end, as the Americans say, but it would be a good test of moral fortitude and quite educative. http://www.rogerdeakins.com/forum2/index.php?sid=d98bc3985b3d278b863fcfc44ef6509c Good luck. Gregg

I'm sad for the original manufacturers, but sort of glad. But I thoght something like a C stand with heads and arm was something that Cinecity in India or similar could make really cheap. But doesn't look like it. Are they locked into contracts making them exclusively for american entrepeneurs? A C stand could be made and sold extremely cheaply. Cheers, Gregg.

For some years, from 1993 to 2010, while I avoided any involvement in film making, I occasionally had the strange thought to write something on the differences between the film and the electronic motion picture image - the impact of this difference on art, culture, human experience. I didn't, the grass grew under my feet and now it's almost too late. There are many reasons why people may lament the apparent demise of film and it may be that they all have some legitimacy. Some important things may be wrongly dismissed as mere sentimentality. For example some people are intimately identified with the physicality of the camera, the perforated film and a photographic process which verges on the inexplicable or magical. This can be quite profound and not to be dismissed. The photographic process is more densely packed with intelligence and meaningful information than we can possibly imagine. A tiny pixel sized dot on the cheek of an actor. How many photons arrive there per 1/50 second while the cinematographer watches. There are probably some on the forum who can tell us, per unit of measured light. It's a lot, a vast number. The interaction between the photons and the actors skin, we have to assume is on the molecular level, or on the scale of the atoms there. My contention is that this interaction between the photons and the material structure of the actor is changing the physicality of both photon and actor. I mean on an incredibly microscopic level. Further, some would contend, 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. So this deluge of photons heading towards the cinematographers eye in the 1/50 seconds interval is overwhelmingly dense with information far beyond issues of light, dark, color, contrast that the cinematographer might normally deal with. You could assume that human sense perception is incapable of responding, or that common disbelief would disable the chance of receptivity. Again, taking an intuitive leap, I suggest that some cinematographers are at least subconsciously receptive to this more subtle, densely rich stream of information and process and make use of it without even being aware of it. Regardless of the degree of receptivity in the cinematographer, after the expiration of 1/50 second, all that stream arrives at the emulsion. Thinking intuitively about that, and yes again making some intuitive leaps, the interaction between photons and emulsion could be conceived of on a microscopic level. Maybe black and white is easier to talk about. Imagine a very small element of grain. The arriving photons make an impression apon it. This can again be considered at a microscopic level. Being saturated with information on a very refined level from their interacation with the actor, now an interaction on a similar level is possible with the emulsion. My guess is that with current methods, contact printing the camera original, we loose a lot of or the purity of this vast storehouse of photographed information. On the conscious level, normal human perception may be unable to see it, but this does not mean that it is unable to make an impact upon us and leave us with something useful. Think art, magic, subjective experience. Now, the digital version. The cinematographer, assuming he is lucky enough to have a spinning mirror, no longer has a photographic capture process that is analogous to his own ocular perception. As before we could hope that his retina, neurophysiology and style of awareness is responding in some way to the microscopic interactions with this vast incoming stream of densely laden photons. Again, after the expiration of 1/50 second, all that stream arrives at the .......sensor. All I can think from what is commonly described about the configuration and function of sensors is that the vast bulk of all that impossibly dense, richly packed information is suddenly all but gone. It's replaced by a relatively) tiny stream of zeros and ones that encode a crude value of only some aspects of that. I think photochemical process is capable of creating a direct and profound impression. The photons landed on the negative and changed it. It enables a direct visceral connection that someone can later make with that moment. Not imaginary, not virtual, not smoke and mirrors. It's real, palpable, can feel as real as being punched in the stomach. But I don't think we all respond uniformly, most significantly for me because we don't all have the same acuity of seeing or functionality of awareness. But then again, moving pictures as a popular art form require some degree of common or shared style of seeing. So perhaps the main stream film industry, in particular, digital exhibition, will culture us to see in a way that is useful to them and no one will notice or know any different. I used up more than my share of space sorry. Cheers, Gregg

Simon, I read somewhere about the amazingly fine grain of this film. Do you have any MTF charts? If I took a S16 Zeiss prime that shows a crisp 200lp/mm on the lens projector is the grain of the Gigabitfilm 40 so fine that I could see all of that on the processed negative? Not looking to buy, just wondering, does the film stock get cheaper with volume. Are there set break points in price as volume goes up or is it a negotiation. Can we call this film Gbf-40? Cheers, Gregg.

Simon, I went to ww.gigabitfilm.de but needed an ID and password. Any suggestions? Is there a website with info on this film stock? Cheers OK, forget that, I didn't spot the missing w in your message.

What happens when you try Gigabitfilm 40 with a continuous processor? Cheers, Gregg

I tried to visualize (hand held) operating with a handle like that. My wrist was sort of fully twisted. Didn't like it. The normal ACL "ergonomic" handle is sort of OK, but really heavy and should let the fist close tighter. And it was too short.

Hey James, It'll be good for an experienced 1st AC to give you chapter and verse on your questions. I'm not one of those, but some of your questions are easily answered. I think you need a good relationship with your operator and DP, whichever one is able to help you and tutor a little on this job. The FFD and lens colimations need a skilled camera tech / lens tech. If you have a little field autocollimatotor and really know how to use it you can check for yourself, but normally you can rely on the camera/lens technician(s).. Ask them when these checks were last done. Ditto the registration check.. I think if you are unfamiliar with the lenses one thing that might help is to ask the lens tech to put them on the projector and you will quickly get some feeling for them. If you are getting a day of prep at Panavision, I would ask. Cheers, Gregg

Hey Simon, I was active in the 80s and never used a tent, but a tent will be a lot more fun if you can afford it. I saw some new tents (shipping from Hong Kong) on eBay that looked good .... http://www.ebay.com/itm/3S-KangRinpoche-Film-Changing-Tent-for-up-to-8-10-films-/200799219980?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2ec090f10c It's 700x900x300mm high, US$100. I think this size would be OK for 400' mags. maybe they had a slightly smaller one also that would be ok. I used an off brand bag that measured 720x650mm (28x25-1/2") for Eclair ACL and Arri II 400' mags no problem. The Harrison bags that I sometimes had to use were bigger (and sweatier). The big Harrison bags that B&H Photo sell, 910x9100mm (36x36") I don't think you need unless you are loading 1000' mags. Something the size of a "small" Harrison, 585x760mm (27x30") would be OK. I have seen some on eBay. Some of the other brand bags selling used on eBay may be ok, I just don't know them. Cheap enough. Cheers, Gregg

The best advice for Simon is to learn to load his Arri mags in a changing tent or bag. It is not a good idea to always rely on a darkroom or always having to improvise a darkroom on location. Used bags are cheap on eBay. Really impotant to have that kit with you, and be practiced with it. Zachary, I did lots of B&W processing on a 200' open spiral and also the Russian spiral tank, did lots of roll breakdowns for camera stock, stuff like that.....all in improvised darkrooms. So I get the value of them......(smily face) Cheers, Gregg

A couple more questions if you can cope. - That's a diopter adjustment at the eyepiece , yes? - Do you know if the anamorphic (de-squeezing) block is removable? Can that fit into other viewfinders? Cheers, Gregg.

Is it the long Lomo viewfiner as shown on this page? http://members.optusnet.com.au/~smort1/lomos/lomos If it's different, any chance of a photo? Cheers, Gregg

Hey Giorgio, Are they 100' or 400' rolls? Cheers, Gregg.

Simon, What camera(s) are you using? Just wondering if the mags are co-axial or not. If you were completely new to this I wondered if you realised that with co-axials only the feed side is done in the dark. Another thought is that you will be lucky if you always have a dark room available, so you need some practice with a canging tent or bag. Bags can be a nightmare if you are new or unfamiliar with the mags and it is hot. Especially the heavy old Harrison bags that get all sweaty and cling to your arms. Cheers, Gregg. PS: I have seen some cheaper Chinese made tents on eBay that look OK. Maybe ask around on their quality first.

Maybe look for a steadicam owner/operator who's at the fringes of the industry, not yet broken into regular high paid jobs. If he gets clips from an amazing short for his reel you may get an amazing deal. Cheers, Gregg.