Jump to content

Mark Dunn

Basic Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Mark Dunn last won the day on July 13

Mark Dunn had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

171 Excellent

About Mark Dunn

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Occupation
  • Location

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Recent Profile Visitors

40108 profile views
  1. That's even earlier- the "sunburst" was adopted in 1964. Handy references here https://www.photomemorabilia.co.uk/Ilford/Chronology.html "Ilford Ltd., Ilford, Essex" disappeared from packages in my very early photographic years- they moved out in 1976, but I was still using film that had been packed in Ilford a couple of years later.
  2. No later than the late 70s or very early 80s. I remember the disappearance of the sunburst from the logo. I still have it on a packet of Ilfobrom 10x8.
  3. Thanks for the correction, I've obviously had that misconception for a long time.
  4. The print stock is indeed sensitive to yellow, magenta and cyan, as these are the dyes present in the IN, but the layers are developed to blue, green and red, respectively, as these are the dyes required to produce a positive image.
  5. At 3:09. Shot on 16mm (so 7251 or '54 which replaced it in 1968) and blown up to 35 for release, directed by Michael Lindsay-Hogg. It's not a BBC show- The Stones made it themselves. Here: https://variety.com/1996/film/reviews/the-rolling-stones-rock-and-roll-circus-1200447402/
  6. Try ebay. It's my go-to place for tricky bits such as this. Chances are you'll be able to buy a dozen for a coupla bucks. Even less if you can wait for them to come from China. Just find the right size. https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_nkw=strain+relief&_sacat=0&_sop=15
  7. I'm a bit surprised the BBC still has them, considering they don't have a lot of the early 2"- there were a bunch of "Goodies" sketches complete with sepmag on ebay a few years ago. Perhaps someone gave a hoot.
  8. I don't know about tools, but 16mm. can look extraordinary in a scan from the camera original. The point about these new documentaries is getting access to the originals, which were probably only ever used to make printing intermediates and then archived. We've only ever seen dupes made from the intermediates, and probably several generations away from the originals to boot. Short of projecting the camera original, which I'm sure was never done, no-one ever saw 16mm. at the quality which can now be achieved from scans. As a fan of film, I hate to say it, but for archive, scanning is just better than printing.
  9. I haven't said anything about documentaries or Ken Dodd. May I suggest you re-read the thread as you're now slagging me off for pointing out that you've been slagging me off for things I didn't say, and also that you take Stuart's tip?
  10. I don't know who you're talking about but it's not me. I don't have an "IMDB record", but my name at least has been on the big screen- I don't know if my body double scene made final cut. If you're confusing me with Robin, that's odd, because his record goes back 34 years. "Squire" is a bit of an in joke between Robin and me- you obviously don't get it. In fact you don't seem to get his style of delivery at all. Perhaps some study of the forum and its various tones and styles would help you. This thread is getting more than a little baroque.
  11. Quite annoying in an Arri ST but in fact they're very well made- for high-speed they were no problem at 5000fps, but the spools were screwed onto the spindles with a retaining nut. Towards the end of the roll they would have been spinning at about 250 revs a second. The camera makers always recommended rewinding onto special balanced spools- just like you have your car wheels balanced- but we never did that because we didn't have them. We threw away more daylight spools than you can imagine.
  12. A question that I'd been thinking about, but you're much more diplomatic than me, squire.
  13. I know that. It wasn't clear from your first post that you did.
  • Create New...