Freya Black

Believe it or not, you must have a better meter than mine as I only have a weston master 2 cine meter! It's my best meter at the moment too!!! ;) Okay I think the problem you are having is that the meter does not work in ASA (gasp!) but in Weston speeds! 64ASA is 50 in Weston speeds, so you would set the dial to 50 rotate it so that the 50 is in front of the 24 (fps), read the number off the meter and relate the numbr in white on black on the outer right side edge, to the inner number in black on white that it corresponds to, which will be your f-stop. :) I've no idea what they mean by relative brightness and you need to know if you have a type A or type B camera (which I think refers to shutter angle. My guess is it is a type A you have but I'm not sure. It's obviously worth checking your meter against a known good one to be sure all is well. Then you should be away and happy! love Freya

The low ASA has got to help at least a bit, also the hand luggage scanners aren't as bad as the cargo scanners, and people sometimes get away with it anyway. I'd be inclined to shoot something with it, if only because 5245 is so beautiful. However maybe not for shooting the really vital stuff. ;) love Freya

I'm interested to know about these diopter lenses because the 240EE wasn't c-mount. Did they come with extra finder lenses too? I often wondered why the 240EE had a finder lens. Also is there a cable release socket for the single frame on the 240EE?? love Freya

Mid Atlantic was the phrase that was thrown around a lot to describe a lot of ITC output! :) Was Saphire and Steel an ITC thing? love Freya

I think there is a panasonic 3 chip mini-dv camera close to your price point. Maybe about $600? You'll have to investigate but that would be a very good option as it has microphone inputs too. Another option might be to get a low end mini dv camera with analogue in like the low end canons or something and get an old 3ccd news camera head and connect the two together. However the resulting beast will be big nasty and unweildy and probably only suited to studio work, or at least you won't be easily able to gun and run. love Freya

I actually meant I was going to investigate the ones I hadn't heard of because you never know but yes the colourist is going to be an important factor, sadly price will aldo be an important factor for me, so it all depends on how it balances. love Freya

Optical sound also uses the S16 image area, however unless you are using an auricon to record sound optically in camera, then you can probably use double perf and the lab might be able to make a single perf print with optical sound anyway. Im not sure if that will make things complicated tho. love Freya

ITC was the production arm of ATV which held the franchise for Birmingham until the government of the time decided things needed fixing. Its most famous production was probably something called "The Muppet Show". Euston films was a production only offshoot of Thames founded in 1971 to produce a certain kind of programming. Thames lost its franchise because Maggie was upset about a programme called "Death on the rocks". Both were part of the ITV network. Thames is still an independant production company but no longer a broadcaster. love Freya I thought the Mill was part of the farm? Thanks for the tips. The only other one of those I knew of was the machine room, so I will investigate further. :) love Freya

I certainly have, and with Nicads too! ...but certainly not for 10 hours! Yowch!!! How do you deal with that, can't be fun to watch a camera do its thing for 10 hours and if you aren't paying attention, someone might "have it away!" :( love Freya My ni-cads are normally warm when they get pulled out. I understand that some of the slow-mo functions in S8 cameras, just couple the motor directly to the power without any regulating of the speed. Rechargeables should probably maintain their speed even as they slow down.

Film and Video Services in Minneapolis used to do it, so I would ask if they still run the service. Otherwise it's Andec in Germany only. love Freya

Really? Can you suggest some places. I know of BBC resources and Rushes, The Farm, and Technicolour, who else is out there ? Also if you know of anyone in the u.k. with a shadow or spirit with a S8 gate, I'd also love to hear about it. Thanks for your help! love Freya

True enough, I expect that means they would have been transfered on the Ursa in Leeds, or possibly on an older Rank machine somewhere. Perhaps even the Rank at the BBC as they rent it out, so who knows! :) There doesn't tend to be too much in the way of advanced telecine in England, although I've started to notice the spirits are creeping in slowly. love Freya

I have used rechargeable batteries in a wide range of S8 cameras and never noticed any problems whatsoever, so I wouldn't worry about it, just charge some up and shoot. The only problems I ever have with rechargeable batteries, is that they lose their charge sitting around, so it is best to either constantly have some on charge if you are constantly shooting, or remember to charge some batteries in advance if not. It's often good to have two sets of batteries too so you can have a set to use when the other set are recharging. I don't expect you will have any major problems. love Freya I've used ni-cads in solar battery chargers. I've not had problems except that the batterys take a long time to charge. The charger only needs lights so where I live it's possible to leave them in sunlight without it getting hot at all because the climate isn't hot here generally. Where you live it might be harder I suppose, although I also suspect that a bit of warmth might be okay. I tend to find that it's when batteries get cold that they lose all their charge, but as I say, I live in a colder climate. love Freya

Well yes of course! If everyone thought the same thing we would never get anywhere anyway! :) I may have read some books over the years. I don't remember, but I've also read some of the official government texts on copyright. I guess I'm just kind of interested in it. I happen to like copyright. :) While people could misunderstand things, that doesn't mean that you should distort them to make it easier for them to understand by saying things like "It is the same as stealing a coke or a sofa". Then they havn't really understood at all. They have perhaps understood a lie that was said to try and get them to comply in some way. It's better that people misunderstand the truth than understand a lie. I would hope that copyright lawyers would have a more full understanding of the matter. After all that is why you pay them the money right! :) I'm not sure by exactly what you mean in your "original post", but if you mean that they would understand it to be the same as stealing a can of coke. I would hope that they wouldn't, even if they might actually say stuff like that. I'm not disagreeing just to disagree, I'm trying to make the point that copyright infringement is not just the same thing as stealing or common or garden theft, and that to imply so degrades the special thing that copyright is. It's more important than that bottle of coke or a sofa. I'm also disagreeing with things that you have said about copyright that aren't true and might be misleading. Yes, my statement was a bit wooly but the point was that copyright is not proof of ownership. Copyright is automatically yours the moment that you create something. Proving you own something is a whole different kettle of fish. In fact to get really pedantic about it, you don't actually own it anyway, you "own" or control the copyright. So it is a matter of proving you are the copyright owner. However copyright law doesn't neccesarily provide any means for proving your ownership. That is left up to you. That's exactly right. It isn't about the actual making of copies. It is about the right to make copies, or even not to make copies! The person who paid you, paid to liscence the right to make copies of your work. So yes, you can liscence that right to make copies to third parties and yes you can attach restrictions to that liscence. Well that would be exactly right they can go down to the store and make photo copies of their work should they chose to do so. I think what you are implying is that my statement doesn't make it clear that they can license that right to copy to third parties, which is true, but the statement is in itself accurate, whereas to say that "copyright is proof of ownership" is very wrong because that isn't what it is and it doesn't even provide any proof of ownership. I would agree, but I wouldn't want to spread the idea, that something wasn't copyright because it didn't have such a notice. It certainly costs you nothing to add that notice but my point is that things are still covered by copyright whether they have the notice or not, at least in the Berne convention and some other places too. It's important to add it because it costs you nothing, it will help you in countries outside the Berne convention, but perhaps most of all, if you get into a legal situation over your work then nobody can claim Innocent Infringement of the work, which could lead to you not getting damages. :) Sadly it isn't neccesarily that simple. The reason there is a special place to register your copyright in America is because a while back, sometime before America joined the berne convention you guys had this really, really horrid and complicated system of copyright. Copyright had to be registered with a special body, and it lasted for 21 years or something (don't quote me on this as it's off the top of my head right now) and then you had to renew it, and well all kinds of stuff. It was complicated, and you weren't protected by copyright law if you didn't register, and if you didn't renew your copyright then it expired. Hence the variety of works that are in the public domain in the states. So basically there was a special office to do all this, and it still exists even though you now have a more sane and straightforward copyright system. However, in other places, like where I live, there never was a copyright office as such, because copyright was automatically yours, so you did what you could to protect yourself. You mailed yourself a copy of your work and didn't open it, or if you had the money perhaps you lodged it with a lawyer or something. Theres still not a copyright office as such here in the u.k. although there is now a private company that has been set up especially for people to lodge their work with. However, you can still be protected by copyright even if you don't have your work lodged with such a company. You just need to have some kind of evidence which can be a wide variety of things. If your work has been out there in the public eye for a while and then much later your copyright is infrindged for example, you may have all kinds of documentary evidence of its publication. Obviously it's best to do what you can to protect yourself. I certainly never said anything like that, it was just what a few people (not just yourself!) seemed to assume, despite the fact that I said nothing of the sort. I think people weren't really paying attention to what I was actually saying, that legally you are not "stealing" (I put it in quotes back at you! ;) ) the copyright holders work, you are infringing their rights. People have been discussing various aspects of this subject here which is a positive thing. We have gone off tangent onto a few different points of copyright that aren't relevant to my point here. I want to ask you the question, do you really believe that economics are more important than the rights of people. That in itself is obviously a complicated question, but it is the point that is at the centre of this discussion. When you photocopy bits from a book or newspaper, or you copy a dvd, or some other thing, then you may not have actually hurt someone economically because you may not have bought those items anyway, so even in some sort of metaphorical sense it wasn't stealing, let alone legally, but depending on the situation you may have infringed someones copyright. I may get burnt at the stake for saying it in these times, but there are things in the world that are more important than just money. My point all along, and I think I've been clear about it from the beginning, is that copyright is a very special and wonderful thing. It is this right that we all have to help us in our creative work and to help each other. It's not just about something as base as the theft of a can of brown sugary chemically water! It seems sometimes that people want to explain what is right and wrong exclusively in terms of economics which is a very warped and twisted view of things. To suggest that it is, is wrong, and is playing into the hands of large corporations who would like to see an end to copyright and are trying to debase it by spreading these ideas that infringing copyright is just like stealing or something. love Freya

They are kind of nasty. I use one a fair bit and if you use it directly it has some nasty hotspots, as you might get from a flashlight! :) I can imagine it might work well bounced however. I've not tried it, but of course it is primitive. The flo's that the other fellow mentioned sound like a very interesting idea too. I bet you can find 12v flourecant sticks out there somewhere if you have a look about. I've got a tiny thing that runs off AA batteries. I've never tried to film using it but now I'm tempted to give it a go. :) I expect you would really need a bigger one, but I have seen them around! :) love Freya

AFAIK this is because you are in England. I've only ever been told of a 10% discount for M.P. film here in England. Certainly the one time I did get some prices out of Kodak (years and years ago now) the U.S. students got at least twice as much discount. However it's been years since I've been able to get any kind of prices out of Kodak U.K. or any information much at all (I think I just got lucky once!) so this could have changed. I'm not sure if this is the way it is on the mainland. There can't be much of a margin on Super 8 film however anyway, so it could well be that the discount is lower for S8 film as well as the discounts being different in England. *shrug* love Freya

I would like to say that you are completely insane but I absolutely love the look of 7245, so I sort of can't disagree with your intention! ;) But 50ASA! You could put a filter on the camera but you will lose a lot of light. One possibility would be perhaps to use daylight balanced flo's? I'm not sure if that would suit the kind of thing you are thinking of doing. A big window might be useful too! The trouble is that it's going to be really hard to shoot indoors at 50ASA to start with, even with fast lenses and then you are going to cut the light with ctb or something!!! eeeek! If that wasn't bad enough, theres going to be smoke too! :) You couldn't set this music video outside it bright sunlight then? ;) love Freya

Hey Thankyou! :) Well we are just chatting about copyright! I doubt theres much you can say that would be too hurtful towards me in that, unless we go wildly off topic! :) I actually think it's quite a positive thing to respond to someone directly and to quote them, because then it is clear you are talking about things they have said, and people aren't left wondering "are these people talking about me?" or the possibility of paraphrasing what you think they have said and ending up accidently changing what they have said. When those two are combined, people end up going through the thread thinking "Where did someone say that? I don't remember that?" and it's really confusing. Well I think I'm a bit more than slightly correct! ;) Copyright originates with the Statute of Anne in England 1710 You can read a modern transciption here: http://www.copyrighthistory.com/anne.html It's a bit hard going to plough through all the pages but the first page is quite a clear indication of some of the concerns that led to the Statute being enacted. You can see it is less concerned with economics but more concerned with ideas of learning and the circulation of ideas and works. I think a lot of people have a great deal of misunderstanding about copyright already as we have seen with all the allusions to things like breaking into your house and stealing a sofa, or stealing a coke or a big mac or something. Well not really. If it comes down to the crunch you may well have to prove that you are the creator of the work. Copyright is the right to make copies of the work once you have created it. As I understand it there are still places outside of the berne convention where displaying a notice like this is needed to declare that the item is copyright in order for you to be covered by the law. In Berne convention countries the notice is not needed, however, you might as well stick it on to be clear and to protect yourself in other places too! It can't hurt and it may well help you, both inside and outside of the Berne convention as you are making it really clear to people that you consider the work to be your copyright. It makes it hard for people to claim ignorance in the matter! :) Yes copyright doesn't in itself generate any money and that's not even really the intention of it. However, as for it costing you money, well maybe it can if you hire copyright lawyers or whatever, but I'd also like to point out that it need not cost you anything financially either. Under the Berne convention, copyright is automatically yours as soon as you create something, (unless it was created in the course of employment in which case it might be considered "work for hire" but that's another whole kettle of fish). You mention the "act of copyright" in quotes which makes it sound a little as if copyright is something you do! That seems a little strange to me. Copyright just is, although obviously there is the act of creating the work, and there may well be the act of doing things to protect your copyrights too but copyright in law is just something you automatically have at least within the Berne convention. Yes indeed this is another wonderful thing about copyright. It is the basis on which all that GNU software is created . It's called licensing. If you own your own copyright you can license (excuse the spelling) the work to people too. This allows you to have some control over the way your work is used. Actually GNU is a great example about how copyright can be about much more than mere economics, because obviously most of the GNU software is free (as in beer). Copyright is a wonderful thing to have around. :) Perhaps they would say that in an attempt to explain the matter but strictly speaking it's not true. Copyright is as the name suggests is a right, and is quite different under law to theft, which is why there are special laws for it. When you infringe copyright you are very literally infringing someone rights. It isn't, they infringed your rights. To me this is a much more serious thing than merely stealing your wooden dining table or stealing a bottle of coke. To say they are the same is to denigrate copyright to something lower than what it is. Hopefully if they did all these things so obviously it might be an easy case! :) However my point was that these things might be more important than losing a sofa or two! :) Also that copyright infringement is not the same thing as theft because it allows you some protection from these other things as well. Sadly in the real world of course it doesn't always work out that way. Sometimes the producer or distributor are very powerful and sometimes the people defending their work are very poor and can't pay all the legal fees etc. Sometimes you can license or sell stuff and the other side of the deal may not keep to the agreement or find all kinds of ways of swindling you. A case in point being the film "Repo Man" by Alex Cox, which to this day Alex has not recieved a penny in royalties for to my understanding. The film At some point I really am going to have to learn how to spell the word license properly! :) love Freya

Well technically under law it isn't it is copyright infringement. They most certainly were not. As I've already said. Copyright law and the whole concept of copyright was created to protect the flow of ideas and to stop big companies with greater resources from exploiting the ideas of others. It had an economic component too in that it was hoped that it might provide some financial income for the people creating the ideas to encourage them to make more. Copyright laws can also be used not just to protect people from making copies of someone elses work, but also the way in which that work might be used and abused. I don't know where you got the idea that copyright was created so people couldn't say that they weren't stealing anything, but it fact copyright was created with much higher and important ideals in mind. (I should also point out that the ideas themselves are not copyright, and copyright is the right to copy make copies of texts in whatever form, just to try and avoid further confusion on this topic) Well I suspect in the eyes of the law this would also not be theft. Possibly fraud or embezzelment. I have no idea what. Incidently, what I wrote was not meant to be a justifcation or excuse for illegal copying or to say it was okay to steal things for that matter, like you have just suggested here. I think this thread has a few people who aren't reading peoples posts properly but just posting things based on what they would have liked people to have said! ;) To put it another way, if the producer or distributor takes your art away from you without any payment and re-edits it and intercuts it with soft porn and advertisement for cars, softdrinks and fastfood, and change it into a comedy, a work that perhaps you spent a number of years working on, then that is the same as if they broke into your house and stole a couch from you? Personally I think not. I guess that depends on how little you value your work however, and whether you are merely interested in making films for your own financial gain. love Freya

Welll people are going to be very interested in these things here because they could relate directly to their work inside or outside of the industry. :) I don't think anyone thought you were lecturing them, just giving your opinion, and lots of other people have been discussing their opinions and on the whole I think it has been an interesting and positive discussion so far. Dominics idea of Fraud and the breaking of an unwritten contract is an interesting one for example. It can be useful to have other ways of looking at things. love Freya

I don't remember anybody saying that at all! Maybe I missed a posting. I suspect you might be reffering to my post. Maybe not, but that certainly wasn't what I said at all! In my post I suggested that to compare the theft of a bottle of coke with copyright infringment was a gross debasement of copyright. They have been awarded whatever amount because their copyright was infringed. I don't disagree with that but I don't think anyone here did. :) That could be true. *shrug* Time will tell. Theres not any evidence one way or another so far however. love Freya

Which strictly speaking is not what happens here because nothing is taken. Copying such things is an infringement of rights. It amounts to stealing in some ways, but it is not the same thing, and as I said, to suggest that it is, is a terrible debasement of copyright. This is not always true outside of the U.S.A. but I do understand how commercial television might make people think that all moving image media is worthless. love Freya

Well at 18fps you get 3.20 per cart so: 90/3.20 = 28.125 So lets say it is 29 carts for every 90 minutes, so then if you multiply 29 by 4, or whatever your shooting ratio is, then you will get the number of carts for that ratio. 116 in this case I think? love Freya

Well it can be stealing stealing sort of. So it wouldn't neccesarily be bad to say it was stealing, just misinformation. To say so confuses people because stealing is a word laden with connotations. Even worse that isn't really what people are saying. People are saying things like it is the same as murder or the same as robbing a bank or even the same as stealing coke or a mars bar, and it is very different to all of those things, partly because copyright is a very special thing and the work of artists is a special thing and a bottle of coke. Well that isn't special at all really. ...but strictly speaking it's not really about stealing. Yes but that is the fundamental problem with the way everything is viewed these days. Purely in terms of economics, but there are other things that are important other than economics, economics is only a part of the equation and to see it that way is bad. From an economic point of view it isn't always stealing because often people will watch pirate copies of things that they might never pay for anyway, so there is no economic loss. I should point out that having a free ride on someone elses money isn't neccesarily stealing either! ;) I guess because people will misunderstand as is clear from the comparisons with stealing a bottle of coke. Copyright is a right. It is the right for people to make copies of their own work. It is important to society and was created to protect the free flow of ideas and art. It was created to protect the creators of such works from unscrupulous large companies (oh the irony!). When you infringe copyright you are actually infringing on the freedom of people to express themselves. Surely a much more terrible thing than stealing a bottle of coke from a supermarket. It is nothing like murder etc. The reason the whole world of copyright has become a mess is because someone allowed companies and corporations to own copyrights, and this should never have been done. It is only individuals who should own copyright. People don't tend to feel bad about infringing on the rights of Fox corporation for example. Why shold they when News Corp stamp all over the lives of innocent citizens. It is very sad to see that something as beautiful as copyright has become so perverted. So much so that people have actually been led to see copyright as a bad thing, which is of course what the corporations would love to have. To see copyright replaced by something else, something that would allow them to control peoples actual ability to copy things. Theres a lot of terrible things that happen in the world maybe it would be better to hit hard, on say the people who threatened me on my own doorstep or the people who make me afraid and scared when I am in my own house, or countless other things. love Freya

Technically, it's exactly the same offence whenever it was done. I'm not sure what you mean? ?????? Movies are data and thankfully contain no algorithms! It would be a very messy buisness if they did. love Freya This is getting way off topic, but obviously it's not in the public interest if governments embezelle Money to line their own pockets with the money that should have been spent on healthcare etc. Just look at what has happened in various "3rd world" countries as an example. love Freya