charles pappas

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.

I have this giant Ang. Retro-Zoom lens attachment (F 0.76, 15x) and I think it is for the old huge Ang. TV lenses and is basically worthless. If it has some cine use though that you know off, please let me know. Googling was a waste of time. Thanks.

I just found this cine lens adapter, at least I think it's one. Does anyone has an idea as to what it is for? As shown in the first and last someone had marked an arrow with permanent marker. Thanks.

I am selling the Canon 814 Auto-Exposure i had posted about in this thread earlier. The film from Spectra came back good; zero flubs on the reel. The camera worked well at 12, 18 and 24 fps. The fade-ins and fade- outs worked well also. Auto exposure was fine panning from light to dark or vice-versa and at the different speeds. Zooms functions well. I pinned a cloth tape to a tree at the 48 inch mark and held the end at the film plane mark and set the camera barrel to 4 feet and the image was tack sharp on the 48. Two negatives: part of the eyecup is torn and there are several small dings on the end of the lens barrel from the 2:00 to 4:00 o'clock positions facing the barrel when the focus is set to 4 feet. The glass looks excellent however and I don't think the dings have any effect on the camera operation or imaging. If I can get the eyecup off a Canon 1014 I will replace it, otherwise the eyecup tear can be glued, taped, replaced by the new owner or ignored. So far I've been unable to unscrew the 1014 eyecup. The AE mercury battery it came with had life in it according to the battery meter, so I used that for the film test. That battery is about dead now so I will include a pack of six new Duracell 675 "air" batteries which can be used instead (some tape- wrapping around them will probably be needed to keep them tight in their compartment, as per internet PDF I can send to new owner). Also comes with original case and manual and lens cap. $295 shipped to US buyer.

I have two (had? - I can only find one now) of these 1980 catalogs: photos attached. There is no reference to the catalog on Google or E-Bay yet to me they are absolutely priceless compendiums of the film making industry at the height of its glory. They have information on virtually every bit of equipment that could have used professionally in a 16mm or 35mm film "workflow," except the last distribution duplication stages. From filming to lighting, record and mixing sound, and editing, all the old and sometimes half-forgotten names are there. There was two pages on triangles (spreaders), which I was interested in, listing 10 manufacturers and descriptions of their various models with photos of many of them. There is no real point to this post, except to bring some attention to the catalog and perhaps see if anyone else has an appreciation of it.

Saw this a couple of weeks ago and liked the movie but there had to be terrible projection issues at the venue. Before the film started and there was no image projected, the blank screen had thin vertical alternating light and dark bands (like photos of a light wave through slits in a Physics textbook). I don't know what those are or what causes them, but that can't be good. Then the picture is self was dim, as if the lamp was not powered fully. Like watching it through waxed paper. Not wanting to miss much of the movie, I made a quick comment to the candy-counter guy - not that anything happened of course but there's a chance it could help down the road.

I have four extra spreaders, pictured is a Bardwell-Mcalister. Anyone know if the hold-downs only work on wooden leg tripods, or do more modern tripod legs often have a "shelf," at the bottom as well? Although these metal spreaders have been around seemingly since Edison/Lumiere, I can't seem to find any info, pictures or values regarding them. If anyone has an idea of their value or would like to make an offer, please let me know. Thanks. (Apparently I can't edit a title, sorry.)

for what it's worth, probably nothing, it seems a pity to cover the windows (speaking of egg crates).

my idea: attached an image of a practical (or similar caged style fixture) that could be placed over or near the gray protrusion below the 91. battery powered if needed. location looks great; self composes.

I prefer the bonfire lighting. Seems I've seen the other lighting about 18,000,000 times.

I recently acquired a very solid Canon 814 Auto-Zoom. I have almost finished running a cartridge of Tri-X though it and all the functions appear to be in order. I will send out and should get the film back from Spectra in two-three weeks and will post here when it goes for sale (and try very hard not to keep it).

I copied this from a post in filmshooting.com (follow link at bottom): nikonr10 Re: Beaulieu 5008 3008 battery thread Quote Post by nikonr10 » Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:32 pm camera8mm wrote: ↑Mon Aug 06, 2018 6:09 am Anyone know what the mm size thread on the handle for the battery is on a beaulieu 5008 or 3008? I'm going to make my own battery grip. Hi maybe this will help  https://erkanumut.wordpress.com/2018/03/25/beaulieu-5008-recelling-handgrip/

Renowned film director Wim Wenders hits out at 'phone photography' https://www.bbc.com/news/av/embed/p06g3pj0/45011397

I'm not sure in the logic of the film that the actions of the presumed doppleganger would generate any sounds. The gunshots (which in the film logic were made by the driver) sounded excellent to me. I am a pretty forgiving film watcher, as I suspect most are. Sound is rated on a 0-1 scale, where 0 is unwatchable and 1 is fine. Not to say that super good sound effects or super good mixing on a California Split Altman dialogue style would be unappreciated, but still ... Whereas I would rate cinematography on, to pick some numbers, a 0 - 5 scale. I could be all wet, though.

16mm

If anyone has any interest, I have a Cameflex mount Ang. 9.5 - 95 ending later today on e-By that looks like it will go cheap. https://www.ebay.com/itm/Ang-9-5-95mm-Eclair-Cameflex-mount-lens-Micro-4-3-video-with-adapter/183269835757?hash=item2aabbbc3ed:g:iY4AAOSwCshbHz4i