Mark Dunn

Gaffer tape residue can be quite brittle so I'd try scraping it off, first with a plastic or wooden ruler (or spatula, if you can get away with it in your kitchen), then moving up some flat metal tool or other.

Ah, Ridley Road market. Got it.

Levels and curves in Photoshop, I expect. I got something similar. Presumably the same could be done in film post-processing. David could explain this better as always, but the 64T, being tungsten-balanced, is more sensitive to red, so shooting without an 85 means the reds will be somewhat underexposed so they will be rather noisy in transfer.

OT, I know, but I don't think I'd have noticed that in a shot with Genevieve Bujold in it.

It was hard matted at 1.66. One of the frame enlargements at that ratio even has a hair in the gate.

Just about every Super-8 camera ever made has the built-in 85 filter which is removed as appropriate, so the effect can't be to serious. Since the pressure plate is plastic and built into the cartridge anyway, it's debatable that the position of the film plane is sufficiently precisely defined for it to make any difference.

>

How about www.no-w-here.org.uk/

Looks like it. They're just marking up about 20%. No way is a UK lab going to take '12-18 days'. They're amalgamating orders to get the bulk discount for themselves.

David, the first time I saw that I was thinking- maybe a cookie (or would it be a gobo)just on the eyes. I thought freddie Young mentioned it in his book but I can't find it just now. Wikipedia has a reference which doesn't sound too inaccurate.

That's right. K64 was the still stock. In 1967 it was still Kodachrome-X.

Since the various constitutional reforms of the middle of the century, the Queen has been Queen of the Commonwealth realms separately, and not merely as a consequence of her accession in the UK. Her successor will be separately King of Canada, Australia, the other 13 realms and the UK. Indeed, since the recognition is separate in each, it is conceivable that, in the event of a change in the law of male primogeniture in the UK, meaning that a first- born daughter of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge could succeed as Queen of the UK, a Commonwealth realm retaining the principle could decline to recognise her as Queen and have their younger son as King. However, it is very likely that all the realms would fall into line should such a possibility arise. The Queen has a separate title in each realm. Her proper title in the UK is 'Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of Her other Realms and Territories, Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.'

I don't know- look here about halfway down http://captjack.exaktaphile.com/Isco%20page.htm If that's it, it suggests it's an objective, not an adapter. Seems it was intended as some sort of trick lens. That example seems to lack the iris. It has a rather small protruding rear element, not the large barrel you'd need to attach to a filter ring. I'm not sure this is an anamorphic adapter at all. I certainly wouldn't gamble much money on it when there are plenty of proper ones on eBay.

The giveaway is to look through the lens at full aperture. The iris will appear larger from the front in a telephoto and from the back in a retrofocus, or inverted telephoto. In a conventional lens, it will appear the same size. For an SLR, or in our case a mirror shutter, wide-angle lens has to have a retrofocus design- the mirror would get in the way of a conventional design The OP might be also have in mind a zoom in exactly matched by a track out, or vice versa, to maintain the same image scale.

Well, whatever they're using, it certainly isn't 35mm.

I found this very useful http://www.amazon.com/Film-Making-Practical-Guide-Spectrum/dp/0133148076/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1304772719&sr=1-1 Dated, of course, but you could still do everything this way- not a video transfer in sight.

No, it refers to '54 in 1968. '47 replaced it in about 1976. I, and many others no doubt, used it personally in 1979. There was nothing faster until Fuji A250 in 1980. There's a famous story about '54 being temporarily reintroduced in 35mm after John Alcott complained during the shooting of Barry Lyndon.

That clip has the distinctive look of the two-colour lenticular Kodacolor, which is, as you said, reversal. It has evidently been misdescribed as Kodachrome. Kodak make no mention of Kodachrome before 1930 and I suppose they should know. In fact Kodacolor dates from 1928 so even the date is wrong. Mannes and Godowsky didn't even take out patents until 1924. Aargh! I can't believe they've re-used Kodacolor for ink. Still, it's their show

I'm sure there would be flash frames where the camera restarted. I even got them on one Super-8 camera-the first frame would be 1/3 stop or so over-exposed. Arris tend do it so I'm fairly sure an old clockwork camera would. So I think the absence of a slightly over-exposed frame at the start of a shot would be diagnostic.

:o

Cine lenses are still made of metal in small numbers and are not mass-market consumer items. The apertures are marked in T-stops to take account of the actual light transmitted -the f number is just a geometrical ratio- so any lens set to a given T-stop will have the same effective speed. Otherwise, zooms, for example, would be effectively slower than expected, because the large number of elements means that they absorb more light than a prime- maybe half a stop. Still lenses will typically only have a few focus marks and so will be difficult to set with a tape. Additionally, because they're usually focused by eye, the markings may not be accurate enough anyway. On a lens intended to be hand-held, the mount diameter may be too small for convenient focus-pulling; looking at the short zoom on my SLR, it rotates less than 90 degrees from close focus to infinity. The only witness mark is at infinity. All this assumes that you can even buy the lens you need in manual focus with marked apertures. A cine set will match in colour transmission so as not to affect colour grading. There's no need for a set of still lenses to do this as colour can be adjusted for each photograph.

If you're not going to a deal like this very often, then that might work. But I'd prefer to keep my costs of sale to myself, rather than share them with clients. They can see the difference between your fee and the lab bill and are free to draw the wrong conclusions. If you handled it this way, you can bet that next time they'd go straight to the lab. So would any recommendations.

Roger that. The deposit should at least cover your total outgoings and half is fair. But really, if you're in business you should be able to meet your own cost of sale without having to wait for the client to settle (or, at least, for the payment to clear). It should never be obvious to your client (or your suppliers) that it's hand-to-mouth. It may be so, but it shouldn't look that way. From the client's point of view the work should commence as soon as the ink is dry. IMHO.

Isn't it bad form to queer someone's pitch on a professional forum? Sure, there's always a lower price somewhere, but pointing it out in a vendor's forum, where people are trying to sell and where the pointer-out might want to do the same someday, just isn't helpful.