Jump to content

Mark Dunn

Basic Member
  • Content Count

    3069
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    22

Everything posted by Mark Dunn

  1. Thanks for the correction, I've obviously had that misconception for a long time.
  2. 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.
  3. 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/
  4. 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
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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?
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. A question that I'd been thinking about, but you're much more diplomatic than me, squire.
  11. I know that. It wasn't clear from your first post that you did.
  12. It's relief agaisnt tax on other income not money in the bank. Hardly the sole basis of an industry. Your example only shows it as income because Markou had income to set it off against.
  13. Unfortunately litigation is less of a participant sport in the UK.
  14. An EU VAT registered business wouldn't have to pay the VAT and of course there's no import duty. At the moment.
  15. https://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/bs3123j/m.html?item=143303603307&hash=item215d8f746b%3Ag%3ADO4AAOSwK0ldDRFv&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2562
  16. A hundred to one the rechargeable batteries are long dead, so you'll need to get them out and figure out a replacement.
  17. You can't possibly rely on a video image as a reference for film exposure- you have no idea how much gain is being applied to the signal for a start. You must learn how to use a meter properly. A DSLR may help a bit, but again the way it responds to light isn't quite the same as film.
  18. Do you mean running it as reversal? A neg from reversal would still look like a neg.
  19. Did the OP edit question A after I replied? I didn't think I'd misread it.
  20. The convergence of the three curves at Dmax is still wrong though. As Carl says they should diverge there.
  21. Edge fogging can impinge into the S16 frame where the N16 frame would be unaffected, as Aapo and I have explained. 400' rolls are on cores so obviously must be in total darkness, but 100' daylight spools may- may - be loaded in subdued light, the clue being in the name, because the flanges are very tight. As you say the Kodak advice is "total darkness" but this has changed. It used to be "subdued light", although I note from my 1980 Kodak field guide that the R-90 and R-190 are not actually referred to as "daylight spools". Of course fast colour stocks are a comparatively recent invention I would still be happy loading a daylight spool indoors, with my back to the light, or somewhere shady outdoors.
  22. None of your links works, and I don't know what imdb thinks it's playing at, but (43) is certainly not John Alcott.
  23. I was referring to something they said a few years ago about 35mm. screenings. 70mm is the exception, I think, because there are prints that Warners don't own. So as long as you can get the print, you just need an exhibition licence.
×
×
  • Create New...