Jump to content

Mark Dunn

Basic Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Mark Dunn

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Occupation
  • Location

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Recent Profile Visitors

41772 profile views
  1. The idea of intensifiers was to increase the contrast enough to make a very thin neg printable. Now it can be done with software, IMO there's no point.
  2. It's probably not this one, but "Movie Magic" by John Brosnan (1974) is, naturally enough for the date, pretty much old-school. You can get a used copy for a few bucks by the look of it. https://www.fantasticfiction.com/b/john-brosnan/movie-magic.htm
  3. That is processed to b/w neg so it will be a silver image. Intensifying that much material would be quite a job but I don't think you'd do any better than with software. It's badly edge-fogged and if it's already been through a grade I don't think you're going to see much more than you already can. Shame.
  4. The place is pretty well-known but I get the idea. I'll see what can be arranged on a future visit. I don't know about the film collection- I think much of it is "distress" collected, otherwise known as "rescued" when the alternative is a skip. Ronald Grant has been in the game since the 40s so I don't think acquisition is on his mind. Indeed some duplicate items are aon ebay as we speak. Changing a Steenbeck belt is something you can still get done by a dealer, albeit at considerable expense, hence my offer of help. A charity that the government has forbidden to fund itself by selling screening tickets doesn't need engineers' fees. One is always too busy doing the job to document much- hence the paucity of material on London Steenbeck- but it's not as if it's some ancient machine that no-one alive has ever repaired. Yet. But again, I take your point. Must do better.
  5. At the Cinema Museum to change a Steenbeck belt.......they have 4 Steenbecks but I have the experience......... The building was formerly the workhouse where Charlie Chaplin spent periods of his childhood Payment in kind- rare spares! This is some of their cool stuff- Michael Winner's Moviola. Nice to get out and about lawfully during the pandemic!
  6. "Safety film" just means it's on an acetate base.
  7. Nice to see a realistic price for a vintage item. Now if it had been Kubrick's.......
  8. Although you can of course judge the lighting ratio from a frame enlargement, that's all. You can't usually determine the amount of light that was used.
  9. On the internet you only tend to see the very worst examples of VS as a warning! It's difficult to find out how it progresses- I wonder if that's because archives tend not to check assets routinely, so they only see the horrorshows when they are acquired, or accessed for copying. Some of my worst examples have actually been magnetic film- it shrinks differentially, so it tends to "weave" through the Steenbeck, but it can still be run with care, and I've never had any problems with the oxide layer. Incidentally, I assume your print has optical sound, but I did once have a BBC print with mag stripe. I can see why it would be more common for TV stations. Just curious. Sorry, this isn't necessarily very helpful, but I'd tend to reckon that a film that could be run now would last our lifetimes- certainly half a century or more. I've had material back to the early 60s and whilst it has all shrunk more or less, none has been unshowable with care, and that's on a Steenbeck. Scanners these days are gentler, they don't use sprockets.
  10. My point was that you're not in the position of an archive with rare or even unique material. Without the equipment I wouldn't attempt rewinding. You could easily end up with a damaging "bird's nest". You could look out for a set of rewinds- although they tend to be overpriced on eBay- but it's hardly worth it for a single reel. On the wider point of film collecting, I can't afford to do that, but I have to say that if I had no way of viewing it and no commercial reason to own it, I wouldn't bother. In my case, film comes in the door, is viewed, and then goes out again. My only archive is of my Super-8.
  11. I find that much, if not most, of the colour film that comes my way has a slight whiff of vinegar, even junk neg from the 90s, but it's not my material so I don't have to worry about it! Most of it is going to be scanned in short order and then will be of little further interest to the production company so I just suggest keeping it cool in a rust-free can. The film you mention isn't rare- it's been released on DVD- so if you just want to keep your own copy in good condition I would be keeping it as cool as possible. Since it's on a reel, a can would protect the reel against warping, so if you have to buy one it might as well be vented. I'm with Daniel, I wouldn't put it in a fridge for the reasons you state, and it's possible to damage the film if it's not chilled and warmed carefully. Incidentally, you may intend to scan it, but of course you won't be able to publish it unless you have a licence.
  12. Yes, as you probably know, a reflected reading off a white card will underexpose by about 2 stops, conversely for black, because the meter assumes you are reading off a grey card of 18% reflectance. So the diffuser dome you clip on to take an incident reading absorbs 2 stops, to allow for that difference. See "zone system"- but don't get too bogged down with it! You're fine with a reflected reading with scenes of average brightness, but anything else will put you out. So you're right to want to try to use an incident reading which doesn't depend on the scene, but on the light. No problem, HTH. But if you want enlightenment (pun?) try David Mullen. I talk the talk, but he walks the walk, every day.
  13. Aargh. That's the exact difference there should be between incident and reflected readings. Kindly admonish yourself.😀 Incident readings will usually be more accurate as you probably know. You still need to allow for the light loss in the finder.
  • Create New...