Mark Dunn

"http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/99/cm3compact3.jpg" http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/99/cm3compact3.jpg I'll stop now. sorry.

How about img src <img src="http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/99/cm3compact3.jpg"/>

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/99/cm3compact3.jpg or <a href: <a href="http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/99/cm3compact3.jpg"</a> <a href="http://s5.photobucket.com/albums/y180/markrhdunn/?action=view&current=P3281371.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y180/markrhdunn/P3281371.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

I'm not going to argue with a camera operator, but I wouldn't have thought the movement of 3oz. of film on a 100' spool would do much to the CG of a 7lb. camera.

IIRC every shot with candles in shot was lit by candlelight only, but there were hundreds of them, mostly out of shot. White's the manufacturers got the largest order in its history. There's plenty of info out there, but in short Kubrick's BNC was modified to take a f0.7 made for the space programme by removing the variable shutter and machining out the mount. No 500T for John Alcott. I remember using some Fuji A250 at college; not using '47 was a big deal in 1980 or'81.

There is no 'super-16' film- it's just 16mm. The only difference with s16 is that the gate extends into what would, on double-perf film, be the sprocket area. But if you just use single-perf film (not difficult as double-perf is rare) there's no issue. You will have a 1.66:1 image as usual for s16.

Not even 2001 is sacred then. What a dreadful prospect. I knew I'd had it for new releases but I thought at least that the classics would still be available as proper film. Looks like the studios aren't content with messing up the future, they're starting on the past as well.

If you're geared up for B/W neg processing I'd do a clip test in a developing tray to see if you get an image with maybe +1 and 2 stops, or maybe you know someone who could do that. It'd be a shame to throw away good film. You could keep it for tests.

I was looking forward to a discussion on the Powell/Pressburger film of the same name.

You should probably say whose dollars those are.

It's not per se illegal here.

I'm not suggesting you delay processing of these cartridges, but next time tape something opaque over part of the film and leave it in the light for a day or two. You'll notice the darkening where it is exposed.

Presumably you are aware that the yellow filters are for b/w film.

It's not a good idea to leave tungsten stock completely uncorrected. Reds will then be severely underexposed, and therefore grainy, in daylight, and blues likewise overexposed. (I think that's the right way round, David?). Even if the integral filter is in poor condition, and being internal there's no reason it should be, you can use a screw-on.

You do indeed a&b the sound as you do picture, with leader (or junk film, which is cheaper), ar spacer. Each sound roll is then the same length as the picture roll. That way levels can be set individually for each roll. Otherwise you'd have to changes levels across a cut, which is impossible. Just make sure that the spacer is cut in base to the sound head, not emulsion, which could scrape off and clog the head. Sound splices use the diagonal blade so that you get a very quick mix rather than an abrupt cut. A&B could be c,d, as many rolls as needed. Even the simplest fictional narrative might have half a dozen or more- two dialogue, one atmos, one spot effects, two music and so on. They are combined in the mix.

You can't recover over-exposure on reversal as you might on neg. If the highlight detail is gone, it's gone, whereas it's still on the negative, just dense but correctable with luck. So more care is needed- maybe you need to fill deep shadows with a reflector. An ordinary bulb really will be quite orange on daylight stock. Maybe try a high wattage- if you can still find one.

On the workprint, no problem. Just tape the trim back in.

Those weren't the good old days. The good old days were when you could hold the film up to the light and peg the shots on a rack.

Presumably from the days when it had dedicated hardware and could be regarded as a separate machine. As in 'the Steenbeck'. Before your time, perhaps?

Agreed, that camera is less than 2 years old.

Assuming you actually use the daylight rather than simulating it, you use the daylight filter. 25W is nothing like bright enough so you might use a blue photoflood such as this http://www.bulbtown.com/BCA_250W_120V_BLUE_PHOTOFLOOD_E26_BASE_p/00050.htm which has a blue lacquer to correct the output to daylight. An ordinary bulb would appear very orange but this might suit your mood; the higher the wattage the less orange. You could proof it with a digital camera.

I believe that any wide-angle attachment will suffice as long as it has a large enough rear element to avoid vignetting. There are usually plenty on ebay, but the problem is you may not be able to send it back.

Just looking at the 500D, the last graph on this data sheet http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uploadedFiles/5263_ti2517.pdf shows what the densities should be on fresh stock. 0.30 is 1 stop of density, your clip test has rather more than 1 stop more density than it should have, so you need to over-expose by rather more than 1 stop. The difference in the red is about 0.2, green 0.4 and blue 0.4. The differences in density don't matter too much, they're dealt with in grading. I'm sure you'll get some better advice soon.

In the UK, yes, because we have a right of rejection when buying sight unseen from a business. I don't know if you have this in the US but I probably wouldn't buy without it.

That will be for running it off an external battery pack or 6V supply. There should be a switch built in to the socket to cut out the batteries, but if in doubt remove them. It replaces the batteries, it's not a charger.