Jump to content

Mark Dunn

Basic Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Mark Dunn

  1. It does, rather. Crumbs. I've never seen anything like it. My first thought is jammed cartridges but I've really no idea.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. I don't see any scratches. A lot of dirt, but no scratches.
  5. 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.
  6. I know nothing, but this sounds like a timelapse job which a DSLR could do.
  7. 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.
  8. :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.
  9. 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.
  10. A few labs will attempt development as b/w neg but with no guarantee of results. I'd keep it as a souvenir, or sell in on ebay to a collector. BTW unless you mean the actor, lemon has one "m".
  11. I've found out that the budget for this indie is close to £2M, so maybe they could afford the optional silver plating. As of today they haven't even asked for their deposit back. No wonder there was smoked salmon and eggs Benedict on the bagels.
  12. Wouldn't have been a problem, there were extinguishers everywhere- because the production put them there. Probably should have been one for the Steenbeck, because this can happen through dust and neglect except of course mine is the cleanest Steenbeck in the land. Anyway there's an extinguisher in my car. Image ©Steenbeck BV
  13. My view is that, with old stock, all you save is the price of the stock. Processing and printing or scanning all cost the same. So it's just not worth shooting anything important on stock whose history you don't know. Unless, as Aapo says, it's art.
  14. So shiny, though- I think the chipped paint is from the racks on the van- do you reckon they've ever been used?
  15. This is quite a big indie, to be fair.
  16. I don't think you can tell the date of manufacture from the can label. Professional stocks don't have an expiry date as such because they're intended for use soon after manufacture. You could look it up here https://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/about/chronology_of_film/index.htm to see when it was introduced, then assume the worst, and clip test. Looks like 1989. I assume you mean can you process it as reversal. Most unlikely.
  17. The attempt at humour failed then. Mono processing is simpler, at lower temperatures,, but quite different from colour. There are plenty of threads on here about it and info elsewhere. Reversal film can be developed as a negative, you just omit the re-exposure or chemical reversal step.
  18. Phil may be interested to see these huddling together for warmth the other day, on an independent shoot. As far as I could see they weren't being used much on set. Perhaps they're so rare nobody knows what they're for.
  19. Tri-X is b/w reversal. The process is completely different. There are no common chemicals...except possibly water.
  20. Sorry for the delayed reply. Reversal print stock is no longer made, and there never was an internegative stock in Super-8, so you've probably had it unless you build your own contact printer and use camera film.
  21. 40 ISO isn't too bad- remember the shutter speed is only about 1/60 and artificial light was used- but it's quite possible it was pushed. You might need to see the negative to identify the stock. There are a few references here https://www.photomemorabilia.co.uk/Ilford/Chronology.html to suggest that Selo (50ISO) was availabe in 16mm. but of course the GPO would be using 35. Faster stocks aren't around until later as you say.
  22. I couldn't conclude from the second screen grab that the film had been pushed; I would put the high contrast down to the lighting- a hard source with no fill. As Phil implies, you can't deduce much from an indifferent telecine. Modern scanning is a different matter, but I don't think that's what you have. There are some 30s and 40s-era "American Cinematographer" magazines on archive.org which might have some references.
  23. Yes, some 65mm. BTS was commissioned by NASA https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2018/12/apollo-11-50th-year-anniversary not to be confused with "Moonwalk One", which was released, in 1971, in 35mm. Only 16mm. cine was shot on the flight. There is also a lot of material shot at high speed on the launchpad for engineering purposes- I believe some of this is in large format.
  24. If anyone knows the film's true rating, it's Cinelab, with a consistent machine process. If it has a recommendation, I'd be using it.
  • Create New...