Mark Dunn

German isn't too difficult to follow for an English speaker, I find. But then I have cheated by learning a bit of German. You could give it a try. It's tough to get the hang of sense, but not difficult to get a grasp of it. I can follow the site with the help of my dictionary.

Until my second year, there was no choice at all. '47 or nothing. Fuji A250 was a very exciting prospect.

The story betrays a fundamental ignorance of photography. There would be no reason for a DP to underexpose just because he was using a different stock. As to the stock swap, it's barely credible that a camera crew would keep such knowledge from the DP. Besides, it would be a test for the loader, not the DP. There wasn't a lot of choice of ISO rating in 1985 in any case. They could only have had '91 and '94, I think.

He got his revenge by not actually singing much at all. Just speaking his lines with a bit of intonation.

You'll be doing three or four jobs at once. At least with some help you'll be down to two or three. At college we managed with two crew, DP/operator and clapper/loader. Slating single-handed will waste a lot of film- that's one occasion where you really do need to be in two places at once. You also can't really pull your own focus, unless it's documentary style. Doing your own loading will cost time.

In 2003, apparently. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verne_Carlson

I'm pretty sure that forum is talking about integral 'scope lenses and not attachments. The 8Z (or 16H, depending which side of the pond you are) is an attachment which doubles as the projector lens. It has to be focussed independently of the objective. On the camera, it requires a rotating mount so that it can remain upright as the lens filter ring, to which it attaches, rotates, as most of them do. I glued a secondary distance scale to mine to help keep it true. The rear element is not particularly large so it vignettes at the short end of most zooms. On the projector a Heath Robinson affair attached to the feed arm hangs it in front of the lens.

$500? No kidding! I've got one of those, mint condition- anyone?

The relationship between aperture and shutter speed is reciprocal- open the aperture and you need to reduce the shutter speed, and vice versa. When you undercrank, the shutter speed increases, so you stop down. 24 down to 8 fps is a factor of 3, or about 1.7 stops, a stop being a difference in exposure of 2x. 3 stops would be a factor of 2x2x2=8, not 3. A basic book on photography is what you need. Perhaps another poster will recommend a resource. I can only recommend this, the only technical photography book I have ever bought. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Basic-Photography-...d/dp/0240515927 Apart from his 'Advanced Photography'

6x3=18. 6x4=24. Uncorrected, your exposure would be 2 stops over. If your meter will read for 6fps, fine. Otherwise take a reading for 24 and stop down 2 stops.

Oh dear, a very familiar story at the moment. A perfectly good business brought low by the indebtedness of its parent. We've just lost a perfectly good liquor store chain for the same reason. Anything that restricts my access to alcohol is bad news.

Yes, they are. The poster was Swiss and the offendee Australian, which made me think it must be personal. As an Anglo-Saxon I'm not offended. I doubt they've been identifiable as a race for centuries, anyway.

I completely missed that, despite being probably even more Anglo-Saxon. Perhaps it's something personal?

There were some elaborate tables about but Samuelsons' manual used to state minimum times for an object to cross the field of view of 5 seconds for flat and 7 seconds for 'scope.

No. Three mono camera negatives, effectively separations, were later printed to three strips of dye transfer stock which were later combined onto a positive colour print.

That sounds like taxation without representation to me.

Quite right. A stills tripod is meant to hold a camera, er, still. The only friction it has is to stop the camera overbalancing, not to resist a pan or tilt. I've looked at that head. The rack is coarse, about the same as the one on a hose clip. It's meant to be moved into position and then locked off. It won't do the job as well as a decent pan-and-tilt friction head, IMHO. $600 would go a long way towards a fluid head.

A projected slide is the camera original. If you could project a copy you would find it much less satisfactory. A cinema print is usually at least three generations away from that. In reversal I imagine it would be very difficult to control the contrast. In addition E6 is a very expensive process. All intermediates would also have to be reversal, at greater cost. There is also only one 100 ISO stock available, as against many different ECN stocks.

Print stock comes in rolls several thousand feet long, so you won't get more than one stock splice in a print of a few hundred. When having long prints, you can pay extra to have no splices at all, to cover the lab's extra expense in not using short ends.

The Super-16 aspect ratio of 1.66:1 doesn't match 4:3 TV. So there was no point using it before widescreen TV.

I did say an abandoned property.

You don't say where you are; in the UK trespass is not an offence per se and you can't be removed from abandoned property without a court order, unless you used force to enter it.

It's been a while, but IIRC the blimp has its own bayonet mount which you unlock, then just pull the blimp off the lens. The focus, zoom and iris levers just slot over the ears on the lens- you may need to line these up. They are the only points of contact between blimp and lens- that's the point, to stop vibration being transmitted. The blimp is not clipped, screwed or fastened to the lens in any way. Then remove the lens on its own in the usual way.

That's 100' so not too bad. We used to run a roll of fresh stock through each camera on a trial just for a speed test. You'll go through it by the mile, I'm afraid.

Long pitch colour neg is still listed by Kodak, as far as I can see. My 2009 catalogue shows 500T and 250D with a minimum order of 18 100' spools.