charles pappas

password wont work

Yes, thanks, now i remember pic-sync, although I wouldn't have been sure if it was 16 or 35, but it is 35. One now on sale on ebay, see below. Way too much for me, would have been willing to spend a couple $100 or so on a 35mm type moviescope if such were available. If anyone can thing of a work-around let me know. 35MM ACMADE FILM EDITING EQUIPMENT EDITING MACHINE PIC SYNC PROJECTOR MOVIE ARRI Condition: -- Time left: Time left:5d 20h Wednesday, 6:46PM Price: GBP 2,250.00 Approximately US $2,960.78 Buy It Now-

Why was there never the equivalent of a 35mm Moviescope viewer? (Or was there?) It is frustrating to have rewinds, splicers and gang syncs, but no viewer option. I can imagine that the feeling was that any parties shooting 35mm would have the resources to at least have an upright Movieola, was that it. More importantly, are there any work-arounds? Thanks.

????????

I know this would never go over due to the massive egos involved, but I'm not trolling. Why not just announce the winners and have them stand in place, i. e., at their seats, bring a mic over to them and allow each 15 to 20 seconds to make a statement. The "Academy," could suggest guidelines for the statement which could basically consist of A.) give a brief anecdote or shed a little more light on the winning project and B.) don't thank anyone. That way the audience could see the winner's costumes and maybe achieve a little more connection to the industry, but the show speeds up. Keep all the clips and songs. Maybe the Best Picture winner people could all come on stage like they do now anyway and the producer make a slightly longer speech.

Bingo !!! Robert Houllahan Sustaining Members 1668 posts Industry Rep Providence R.I. Posted Yesterday, 01:06 AM Yeah no technology humans have invented has ever really disappeared and certainly there is quite a demand for film and as long as there is human civilization there will be film.

Stephen, please at some point post here a summation of the "CML" tips, if they are salient, as I am and I assume many others are quite interested this topic. Thanks.

Peter, not that I that close to my 80s but yes, I know.

Coincidently, last night I saw a 35mm print of "Computer Chess" with Andrew Bujalski and almost all of the crew in attendance. Very excellent film. Also, if this is just snark, then please forgive me, but I wonder if audiences would be more likely to expect to find 60's and 70's rock stars on the stage of "reunion tour" or "revival tour" rather than in a retirement home.

thanks. John Russo (Night of the Living Dead) in Making Movies says he always did this. For reference, he was paying about $121.00/400 feet of 35 neg, $0.09 per foot for processing, $0.25 per foot (of 16m) for the 16mm workprint with edge numbering and $0.87 for the answer print. I'm sure he wouldn't have been too concerned about the lesser fidelity of the 16mm mag film he used. Agree this process must have been very unusual.

Can anyone hazard a guess as to whether the above referenced cost-saving measure has gone the way of the dodo, or might there still be some labs that would do the optical printed reduction as an unadvertised "special."

Musicians and still photographers use their creativity to create "stand-alone' works of art (separate from the film) that may have potentially tremendous value apart from the value of the film. To wit: the soundtrack of a mediocre and/or poorly grossing film that sells millions of albums or downloads. Granted, still photographers can't seem to exploit their "stand-alone" artwork as much as the musician, but it does seem fair that both have that contractural right. Unfortunately, the genius contribution of the cinematographer, editor, set designer, costume designer, etc., has zero value apart from the film itself. Even more unfortunately for them, the contribution of their works of art, great as they may be, can at best be only a necessary condition of the success of the film, history has shown. Whereas the contribution of a screenwriter, an actor or sometimes a director can be and often is a sufficient condition of the success of the film. In that sense, it does seem fair that they command a potentially higher amount of money for their services. Edge case: a costume designer whose design "takes off" and is sold in stores, (very rare, but I would also hazard a flat-out guess that they have some contractural rights in that regard, for their "stand-alone" objects). Edge case: the Zapruder film, where a frame grab has great value (I can't think of any other film where a frame grab, even in a documentary, has had any real value that that the cinematographer could realize). Not really an edge case: a Stan Brakage type film, where the cinematography and editing seems to be the only thing on screen but where Stan can be compensated as a producer, "writer" and "director" who provides sufficient value towards the success of the film. That is my take, that "stand-alone" creations and providing a potentially sufficient condition for the success of a film account for those seemingly unfair contracts.

Thanks for the reply. I just snapped that I needed to refer to the 1980 Victor Duncan catalog and now I see that it was designed for the Ang. 10 -150 film zoom lens, hence the 15x. It converted the lens to a much wider 7.5 -112 zoom, and reduced the "minimum object distance" to one foot, which I believe is several feet closer than the unmodified lens. It requires an "intermediate bayonet ring, " which I don't have. I imagine the three prongs on the rear of the retro-zoom would be twisted into the ring and the ring screwed to the front of the lens. As the retro-zoom weights three pounds, I imagine substantial lens support would be needed. For the curious, Victor Duncan asked $2,250 for the retro-zoom and they asked roughly twice that for a c-mount 10 - 150, with named lens mounts costing more.

Sorry, I don't think that's right. It is one thing to clam up and stand there like a log, or mumble under your breath and ask for the price again, or disparage the lens for any conceivable flaw, or throw out an irrelevant comment like you feel lenses have lost some value in the digital age, but to completely misrepresent one's interest in the lens, that's just not something I could do.

Okay, it looks like i need some help on pricing. I paid $64.58 for the camera, but it also came with a no-name broken fixed lens Super 8 camera, so take off $5.00: $59.58 Film and processing, but no postage at all, from Spectra was $44.75: $44.75 Spectra Postage (4 legs) was either $13.40 or $20.10 *, can't remember, say $13.40: $13.40 Belt for Elmo 180ST projector was needed, $10.99, will take half because now I can use the projector again later: $ 5.49 Shipping to buyer (could well end up costing me more}: $18.70 Total: $141.92 I will sell the camera at a price someone posts here provided a.): that I feel they have taken into account the many hours I have spent on procuring it, testing it, etc., b.): that they take into account both my desire to keep this camera for myself and my desire not to be a camera wholesaler and c.) will pay me in PayPal. *postage should have been $26.30 but the USPS didn't cancel the stamps on the SASE. When I brought that to the clerks attention she hemmed-and-hawed so I just shipped it and saved either one leg of postage or somehow maybe two, can't quite remember.