dd3stp233

Dictionary Definition of ART NOUN: 1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature. 2a. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium. b. The study of these activities. c. The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group. 3. High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value. 4. A field or category of art, such as music, ballet, or literature. 5. A nonscientific branch of learning; one of the liberal arts. 6a. A system of principles and methods employed in the performance of a set of activities: the art of building. b. A trade or craft that applies such a system of principles and methods: the art of the lexicographer. 7a. Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation: the art of the baker; the blacksmith's art. b. Skill arising from the exercise of intuitive faculties: ?Self-criticism is an art not many are qualified to practice? (Joyce Carol Oates). 8a. arts Artful devices, stratagems, and tricks. b. Artful contrivance; cunning. 9. Printing Illustrative material. By definition an artist can call their piece a work of art. If it is good or bad art is left to be judged by an audience. Atonal compositions are considered music by some. Where would great classical music be without discord, try listening to Wagner or Beethoven. They were somewhat controversial back in their day. Van Gogh never sold a painting in his lifetime. So he didn't produce art until after he was dead by capt vid definition. The greatest art, most people wouldn't be able to understand, it's ahead of its time. Look at Oskar Fischinger films. Many just sound and color moving, hand painted, mostly abstract. Influenced Disney into making Fantasia, which he also help work on. Verdigo's or Casablanca are not experimental films they are commercial film. The general movie going public are not educated and intelligent enough to appreciate a great work of experimental film. Look at what is considered by literary scholars to be the best books in the last century and not one will have been on a best seller list.

If you talk to almost any serious audiophile and they would say analog sounds better. They should know, they spend more time and money, listening to sound then anybody.

I didn't really mean for this idea to be accepted as a commercial theater standard. I may just make my home theatre this way. Dolby digital would work just as well since it isn't printed in the super 35 picture area. I am concerned that movie companies pushing digital theater projection have not fully considered piracy more since it such a growing problem these days. First a digital copy when copied will have a perfect clone copy. Encryption methods are easily cracked. (Decss the Dvd encryption code was cracked by a 10 year old boy in Norway) Theather projectionists and employees are generally low paying jobs, copies are bound to leak out. Look at how fast perfect digital copies of Star Wars 2+3 were available on the black market, in some cases it was before the movie was released. Digital makes it easier for pirates. Considering statements by the MPAA over the last few years about how much the industry is losing due to piracy, I would think that motion picture companies would try to do something to make it harder for pirates not easier. The price of prints are much less then how much would be lost due to piracy.

A movie could be shot in super 35 (4 perf) and contact printed, using only a SDDS soundtrack, this would utilize the extra space on the film for picture instead of the other soundtrack types. Other then projectors needing a full aperture gate (some art type theaters may have already if they play silent movies) and having a SDDS system, does this not sound like an idea that has some merits to look into? Other then not being compatible with some (manly older) theater systems can anybody think of why this isn't a good idea? SDDS offers 8 channel sound and super 35, a larger picture area.

For the K-3 there are 3 lens mounts types. There's the m42 Pentax screw mount, the bayonette mount and the third is I don't actually know what to call it. I have not seen another mount like this on any other camera, still or motion picture. I have not seen any other k-3's with this third lens mount except for the one I own and I have several of these camera's with the different mounts. It is kinda of like a c-clamp but was factory made like this. The standard Meteor zoom lens just slides in and on the camera there is a lever that turns, to lock it in place.

I remember reading an interview with Lucas about "Phantom Menace" He said some shots had up 17 different elements composited togather, so a lot can be done with optical printing.

I have used a special thin based polyester base filmstock made by Ilford, it would fit 200ft on a standard 16mm daylight spool. So that is twice as much film as normal. Sadly, I don't think Ilford makes this filmstock anymore. It was their SFX emulsion on polyester base. May have been special order anyway. I'm sure there is a way to modify the camera to hold a mag on the back but the cost to do it would probably be more then the camera itself.

Actually, yes, after rereading the interview, the camera survived but the lens didn't. -" On the final one it landed right on the lens and smashed it "

Interesting note: the POV shot of Alex jumping out the window while not hand held was actually the camera being thrown out the window. If I remember right, it had to be done more then once to get the camera to land lens down. The lens was destroyed and maybe part of the camera too.

To find the rate that the projector is running. Measure a lenght of film and run it through the projector and time it with a stop watch (or a regular watch that measures seconds). Your then use a film calculator and that will tell you the fps speed. You could do this several times for different settings on the rheosat.

Hemp fiber is used to make ropes, twine, cloth, paper, etc. Nobody sensible would want to smoke hemp. Different variety of the same plant that your were speaking of loaders smoking. Only the seedless flowering tops are used for what you described. That's interesting though, I've never seen a hair get stuck in a gate. I usually have more trouble with wind blown sand and dust. I always use a darkroom, never used a changing bag.

The silver-dye bleach process has been and continues to be used in color still photography print applications with the price being comparative to other methods. Its generally considered the best method for archival stability and superior in its color attributes.

I've heard a lot of the old timers still use flatbeds or even upright Moviolas. Some low-budget films may use them too. Also many people that consider themselves film purists, that actually prefer to physically handle the film during editing.

Back in the early 1970's(or older) there were several novel developments in color film technology. Does anybody know why other types of color film never caught on or were not commercially produced? I am speaking of Dupont type 275 color film, or 3M Electrocolor Print Process (electric developed film?), or mixed grain or packet process films. But mainly thinking of silver-dye bleach process for prints, this type film (especially for cinema prints) was reported to have color dye stability that is about 10x that of other color development dyes, finer grain, and with spectrophotometric properties closer to the ideal so that colors are brighter then conventional processes.

Maybe I have the name wrong or something but I'm talking about the scanning kind with no gate. It should not jump because there is no claw or anything. The type I'm refering to wasn't around when they used newsfilm.

Spiral reels are the best for home processing, basically a larger version of what pro-photographers use to develop roll film. Rewinds processors do not achieve as professional results. Wear gloves to avoid scratches and fingerprints, basic film handling techniques. Film hangers from editing trim bins work great. Two hung in a row, easily hold 100 ft of film without the film touching. Most modern films, the emulsion is prehardend. Also John's reply from Kodak, I've had Kodak's lab lose my still film and a negative to be enlarged was destroyed, that is actually why I started developing my own film.

What mean by I need a Rank Cintel (or similar modern equivilent) is that the workprint has many splices in it and would likely not run through a projector type telecine. I say workprint but it is actually a master positive with seperate magnetic track. Many of the shots are composites from negs. so only exist on the master positive.

I have a 16mm workprint with seperate 16mm magnetic soundtrack that I need transfered via Rank Cintel (or similar) to Digibeta (or similar) in the Los Angeles area but have not been able to find a place to do this. It would be much appreciated if anyone can tell a place, preferably the least expensive, that can do this. Thanks in advance.

Yes, I meant only one developer for negative developing. I guess most people trust labs, I don't. You never know if their chemicals are fresh. Many times they are not. They are business so alot of the time they may be streching them at least a bit, depending on the lab. They may not even know if chemicals go a little weak, oxidation rates in chemicals are not exact. They may test but they don't after every roll. Many times your color negatives may look a little flat, in color rendition, may mean the developer is not quite right. I've had really horrible experiences of them losing or ruining irreplacable film that I've shot. No one will care more about your film then you. I've taken identically shot film of the same stock to the same lab but at different times and gotten completely different results back. Have you not noticed that labs have in their forms that you will not hold them liable for losing or damaging your film in their labs except to the extent of replacing the raw stock? That means they could anything to your film and not be held responsible. Doesn't matter how much it cost you to shoot it. I know that it isn't realistically financially possible for them to be liable. Guess it is really a matter of trust.

Achieving profesional results with hand developing is matter of how much skill the person has that is doing the processing. Most professional fine art photographers develop and print their own film, why is so unprofessional to do the same in cinema. For black and white home processing, there are other benefits to doing it by hand. Number one is choice of developers. Labs only use one developer, no choices. There are literally hundreds of developer recipes out there. Some are more modern and superior to the one used in labs. Also with the choice of developers any type of result can be produced. Such as, highering or lowering of contrast, different tonal gradations, multi-bath developers, bringing out shadow details, pushing or pulling film beyond what a lab will do and the overall look and developing properties that each developer produces. I would think that a really good cinematographer would do his/her own processing to make the film exactly the way they want. This is something that I think many cinematographers do not know about, a major part of the way a film negative looks is dependant on the processing. Manipulations of the formula (even in color) changes the final result and no labs even do this. (Other then simple stuff like skip bleach) There is an entire art and science to the processing of film. For black and white it dates back 150 years or so and a modern lab only does it one way. I personally can get superior results developing film myself, for about 2% of what a lab charges for developing. And all the effects that they can't do for free.

I would check out "Bullet Ballet", a Japanese film by Shinya Tsukamoto (most famous for "Tetsuo: the Ironman". It is very film noir influenced. Not his greatest movie but visually very interesting.

I have a General Scientfic - 35mm Miltar lens f2 - f22. A Cooke Deep Field Panchro 100mm - f2.5 - f32 and a Cooke Cinema lens 47mm f2.5 - f32. Is anyone familiar with these and what would be your opinion of them.

On the topic of Eyemo lenses, I was wondering which ones are better then others. For instance how do the Cooke lenses compare to the Eyemax lenses? Or how about General Scientific Lenses? Any opinions?

I think in most of the standard Eyemo lenses that the focus ring moves the whole len, back and forth. There is a metal prong in the camera's lens mount that inserts into a hole in the back of the lens. This keeps the whole lens from rotating. If I remember correctly, there is also a pin that comes down, on the top of the camera lens mount, that holds the lens in place. What lenses do you have fro the Eyemo? Maybe I could give you more info.

If you don't want to get caught filming without a permit, 1. Don't let anyone see you filming 2. Leave no traces I've see good cinematographers film great stuff with 100 year old equipment.