Jump to content

Mark Dunn

Basic Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Mark Dunn last won the day on December 29 2018

Mark Dunn had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

163 Excellent

About Mark Dunn

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Occupation
  • Location

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Recent Profile Visitors

39500 profile views
  1. http://www.whatonearththemovie.com/shop/pages/NTSC_PAL.html
  2. I was tempted to say LMGTFY, but everything seems to be for digital projection. So I've got my Samuelsons manual out. Easy algebra OK? w= (ad)/f and d= (wf)/a where w= picture width (m) a= projector aperture width (mm) d= projector throw (m) f= lens focal length (mm). a for Super-8 is 5.33 So for a 1m wide picture with a 15mm lens you get a throw of 2.8m. 15-25mm is about standard for a projector zoom. There isn't a lot of interchangeability. They don't come much longer unless you have lots of £€$.
  3. I think OP means sharp as in "in focus", not sharp as in right angled.
  4. I'm surprised you asked the question when you already had Kodak's recommendation. I stand corrected, but I still wouldn't allow any safelight directly onto the film.
  5. No 13 is an amber safelight filter for b/w printing on paper or blue-sensitive b/w print stock. You can't use any safelight at all with colour stock.
  6. It does, rather. Crumbs. I've never seen anything like it. My first thought is jammed cartridges but I've really no idea.
  7. How did you conclude that the film is broken? Can you see the broken ends? It takes a good deal of force to break film that isn't already damaged. I'm be surprised if a camera could do it.
  8. Rats. I could have done that.
  9. It's unlikely to have happened at the lab , so the first port of call must be the inside of the camera, especially the gate. There must be a lot of dust and hair in there that's jumping around so that it affects a lot of frames. I've never seen anything that bad.
  10. I don't see any scratches. A lot of dirt, but no scratches.
  11. The forum update has thrown up this old post, so here goes. "The work of the motion picture cameraman", Freddie Young and Paul Petzold, Focal Press, 1972. A bit long in the tooth now, and it was a little dated even when I got it in about 1978, but a fascinating look into the world of one of the greatest lighting cameramen who ever lived. I took it to film school and it probably taught me the odd thing. Bought at the same time, from the same series: "The work of the film director", A.J. Reynertson. A bit cerebral, probably responsible for my realising I didn't particularly want to direct. "Filmmaking: A practical Guide", Carl Linder. More of an underground work. Still worth a read.
  12. I know nothing, but this sounds like a timelapse job which a DSLR could do.
  13. It happens more often than you'd think or like. Presumably non- reflex finders and it just wasn't spotted. I have a pet theory that audiences were more accepting of artifice such as this, or fringey travelling mattes that we point at now and say "how did they ever buy that?". They just did. My theory doesn't account for Hitchcock's apparently deliberate use of jarring opticals as an abstraction.
  14. :D things have moved on, we had bagels with smoked salmon and eggs Benedict. Come to think of it there was a strong whiff from outside, could have been pork, but we were in Hornsey, so it was probably skunk.
  15. Believe it or not this shoot was mute, with no ACTT shop steward in sight, so at least they weren't having to pay him to drink tea. There was a big van outside, but I think it was for lights, not sure his wallet would have fitted in there as well.
  • Create New...