Mark Dunn

Photofloods are usually 3400K but 3200s used to be available as well. Make sure you get the right ones, although the difference is small so it might only be a problem if you mix them. The P1/1 is 275W and the P1/2 500W.

Indeed. CGI will go out of fashion. Then we'll need stories again.

Reminds me of the speederbike chase in 'Return of the Jedi'. The plate was shot near ground level in a forest at 2fps, to give the effect of a high-speed chase in a forest with 1000-foot trees.

Indeed. One of my desktops is a frame enlargement of (IIRC) the Barry/Quin duel. It's obvious because it's hard-matted and there's a hair in the gate.

At least you CAN sell an unclassified film. Here it's a criminal offence.

Yes, the neg and reversal papers are different. Since the demise of Cibachrome your only option for slides is Kodak paper. The process is expensive, demanding and requires accurate temperature control of several chemicals. There's no contrast control in reversal printing. You do work in complete darkness. All in a you'll probably be better off going to a professional lab, or scanning into Photoshop and doing your 'lab work' there. Have you ever printed black and white? If not, you'll be better off getting experience there first.

English law is different and Serge may be aware of this. Here copyright generally belongs to the creator, unless he is a salaried employee in which case it belongs to the employer. Presumably most DPs are self-employed and therefore do own their images in the first instance. There may be debate as to who actually 'creates' a film image but it seems unlikely that a DP would not qualify. This provision can be overridden by the terms of a contract, of course. (Copyright, Design & Patent Act, 1988).

I think he means 'the cheapest print FROM' a scan rather than FOR a scan, ie. a film out from a DI. Why he doesn't just stay on film I don't know.

1963 for peel-apart colour, 1973 for SX-70. But alas no more. Polaroid film is out of production. Fuji still make some peel-apart stocks for professionals, and Polaroid was hoping to license some production, but unless that happens, SX-70 is dead, I'm afraid.

Built so like a tank it sort of looks like one.

Not that I'm entitled to queer your pitch, but it's an extraordinary amount of money for Super-8 when Locams sometimes go for a few hundred.

All the references I can find have the 'Rope' budget at $1.5M, which is actually quite a piece of money for the time. After all, Casablanca was only about $600K plus overhead.

16mm. maybe, but surely not 35.

I assume the £278 figure is a misprint. I also assume you know that 35mm. runs at 90ft/min; stock and processing comes to about 60p/ft so if you shot 1:1 and used every foot that would be £5400 on its own. So I think the answer is no.

No, it was Michael Rennie.

If you think about it, tail-out single-perf film won't go back in the camera because the perfs are now on the wrong side for the sprockets. You have to rewind it to get them right.

:o

They've taken on a classic and the only way to enjoy it will be to put Wise's version completely out of your mind. TDTESS was a tight little thriller and a perfect Cold War allegory by a great director, beautifully executed on a small budget. The remake isn't. I won't be investing in a ticket.

Dry chemicals keep for years in reasonable conditions- ie. not damp, or hot enough to cause decomposition. If they're in drums or sealed bags, they'll be fine. As for the liquid, it really does depend what it is. Concentrate will last longer than working strength, fixer longer than dev. As long as fixer still smells acid, I'd be happy with it, but if the developer is anything deeper in colour that a pale brown, it's probably oxidised.

Can you substantiate this 1976 date? 125% is well within the latitude of neg stock. Light meters (as opposed to photometers) have always been marked in thirds of a stop, which is close to the 125% you quote. There was a change in the ASA rating of mono stocks in the early 60s but it really applied to still photography.

Ooh sorry, forgot to read page 2.

No problem. Lunar Orbiter had an automatic processing lab on board. The photographs were taken aerial film. The film was then pressed into contact with a developer-and fixer- impregnated film which yielded a negative in 3.4 minutes.. It was then dried and scanned for transmission to Earth- the density variation is a scanning artifact. Here's a full explanation http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/lunar_or...roduction.shtml One of Lunar Orbiter's main jobs was to survey potential landing sites for Apollo.

... and cost $28,815 new.

The ring bracket, I imagine, is just a right-angle fitting with the screws threaded into it, and can stay where it is. I'm sure you could attach a bracket with longer screws to take a weight of a few ounces. Not taking the front panel off is a very good idea.

Haven't you heard? The Martians destroyed Shepperton in '96. 1896. Perhaps that's why it's so quiet.