Mark Dunn

You've missed his point. He's agreeing with you.

The metering is TTL so it will make no difference, as the meter will just compensate for the ND. You may need to re-notch the cartridge.

'Embedding disabled by request'. It takes a few seconds for a bright light to fade from a vidicon tube. Meanwhile, if you pan, you get a trail which fades with time. Nothing to do with shutter speed. CCDs used to ghost vertically from bright lights but that was fixed years ago. I agree, you'll need an old tube camera to experiment with. It was considered a fault and when it was fixed no-one was interested in having it back. When you do see the effect in a film, it's usually been done for real, with an old camera, or a newer one suitably hacked.

I saw it on general release here, just before I was 9. It was a bit confusing but I had my very smart American airline pilot uncle to discuss it with. It's still a bit confusing, though. The 'Guardian' has just voted it the best SF film. That isn't confusing.

'No prisoners', eh> Still the only film I've ever seen with printed-in intermission captions.

The Guardian newspaper here has just had one of those 'best films' series, 25 in each of 7 genres. Guess who had 6. A little more difficult: which 6.

Dioptres (close-up lenses, we call them here) magnify. You need a reducing lens- as Karl says, a teleconverter, such as would correct his near sight. It effectively increases the focal length so you get a smaller image at a given distance, which is what you want. Try borrowing a weak spectacle lens for near sight of known strength. It's easy to tell which is which- you need one that makes things look smaller when you look through it. It probably won't be well enough corrected to use but if it works you could then look for a lens of matching strength- it'll be minus so many dioptres.

Gunpoint street robberies are vanishingly rare here; he's relying on you not knowing that. And- Carnage Bros? They're 'avin' a larf.

No reason the Hubble shouldn't use it. It was designed in the 70s, built in the early 80s and launched in 1990 and although various assemblies have been renewed, I don't think they've done an oil job.

Be careful with the split image as it's easy to mistake the straight line. It varies a bit as your eye accommodates.

A beautiful little film, Having just spent a wet couple of days in Belgium I can vouch for the rain in the Low Countries. The music was obviously modern, but was it from the original score?

Copy that. Kodak are proud of their heritage and will probably send you a bit for nothing if they still carry it.

A glass like that with a lot of head looks like about 200ml, the size you get in Köln. Whilst 1.4l of 5% Carlsberg is a little challenging, and I'd much prefer Kölsch, it's still only about the same alcohol content as a bottle of Mosel Riesling and I'm sure John Mills took it in his stride. Although sitting down no doubt helped. I don't know about you colonials but anyone in the film industry here would surely be able to down that much without breaking step.

There is alcohol-free, rather than low-alcohol, beer. I can't think why you have to make it, rather than buy it.

Catch him in 'Bad Day at Black Rock' if you haven't already.

Forgive me, but in England we call what you call timing 'grading.' So your topic title, with 'colour' as the verb and 'time' as the noun looked rather philosophical, or at least existential.

This is why I was able to get a Steenbeck for £75 (£20,000 new) and a pic-sync (£6000) for £1. And that was five years ago. I still love them, though, and one day I hope to have enough money to feed my K3. If 16mm. reversal is still around then.

A step-down such as that would probably vignette quite a bit. I've still got my 8Z and mount, however. Please PM me if serious.

An EV is one stop, so 0.8 EV is something between 2/3 and a full stop. So I'd say your meter means you to open up 1/3 stop from f11. Why it deosn't say f8 and 2/3rds I don't know.

You say the pulley is intact, but there may be a broken or slipping belt inside the arms. If broken, superglue may fix it, or you might find replacements on eBay. The lace looks OK.

All 8mm. film is 8mm. wide. The main stripe goes opposite the sprocket, outside the frame. A narrower balance stripe goes outside the sprocket, for even winding. Some projectors can record on it but the sound quality is pretty awful. Use of it was the only way that Super-8 could offer stereophonic sound.

Moonlight is about 19 stops fainter than sunlight. That's a factor of nearly half a million. Short of an image intensifier you have no chance of getting anything close to a normal looking exposure.

Such an emotive term. Fortunately we did away with all that unpleasantness thirty years ago.

I wasn't going to mention this because I don't like to queer anyone's pitch, but you've posted again, promoting the virtues of cement splices, so I think it's fair. A tape splicer makes a butt join, so as long as you make a good job with the tape it doesn't show on projection. A cement splice works by overlapping the film, so the splice always shows as a frame effectively cut in half. Also, if you want to remake a splice, you have to cut out the overlap so you lose two frames. Cement splices are prone to parting in the projector. Well mine were anyway- I ditched them when I found the CIR. YMMV.

Presumably you are aware that these two types are very different. The Wurker uses pre-punched tape splices which cost around 10p each, the CIR uses the much cheaper plain tape. I have a CIR splicer (the original metal guillotine version, not the cheaper plastic) but I would need a very good offer. It's about £200 new.