Mark Dunn

That internal flare only seems to affect the edge of the field of view on 35mm, which you're not using on 16mm. I imagine you could fix a bit of gelatin ND inside that screw-on UV filter with Blu-Tack or something.

Faulty memory with 'Sweeney', I expect. I didn't claim any of the others I mentioned were 35mm- I'm well aware they were 7254 and '47. But there was plenty on 35mm- The Professionals, Quatermass. It was never mushy or 'pulpy' over here- you must have had second generation over there or something.

I don't agree. Most modern British stuff isn't a patch on the well-crafted , atmospheric work on the likes of Euston Films' shows (admittedly 35mm) such as The Sweeney, Out, Danger UXB and so on. Even the 16mm shows such as Brideshead Revisited (Granada) or The Voyage of Charles Darwin (BBC) were beautifully done. More recently we've had Central's Inspecor Morse. Nowadays no-one is allowed time to do anything other than a bland all-angles Steadicam-lite setup. Unless they actually choose to have them look like that. Urgh.

Slightly OT, it seems the silents were intended to be shown a bit fast. I recall reading a technical standard from the early 1920's specifying a shooting rate of about 66' per minute (for 35mm) and a projection speed somewhat higher, about 72 IIRC. That equates to shooting at about 17-18fps and projecting at 19-20. I can't remember the reference bit I'm sure I'm not inventing it Here's something. http://www.cinemaweb.com/silentfilm/bookshelf/18_car_1.htm

The filter comes out for tungsten shooting. 64T needs an 85B filter in daylight, the built-in 85A isn't quite sufficient correction. That brings the daylight speed dow to 40. Your camera may or may not meter 64T correctly- many don't- so if it reads the 64T cartridge as 40, you'll need to stop down 2/3 of a stop from what the camera's meter tells you, or meter manually.

Someone's paying a 14-year-old professional rates to shoot 16mm. without a meter? I wouldn't mind some of that. Unless of course 'as much as' means the same amount of nothing. Sorry, that sounds a bit sarcastic. But if you're being paid as a professional, you need to deliver the goods or it'll be the first and last time. And you can't deliver the goods without a decent meter.

Your shutter speed at 24fps is 1/60th. So, in bright sunlight, f/16 would be correct for 64 ISO film (and close enough for 50 ISO.) You get slow motion by running the camera faster- 32 or 48 fps- and adjust the aperture accordingly, because at 48fps the shutter speed is exactly half, or 1/120th. The film is shown at 24fps, thus you get slowed-down action. Shooting by eye with colour film is a complete waste of time. You might as well save the cost of processing and bin the film. No-one has shot by eye for decades, and then not with colour. I think you need to sit down with a good technical book and learn a bit of photographic theory. There are no shortcuts.

Some of it looks as if it was processed in a bucket, although if all your good stuff was processed in the same run that can't be. A couple of times it looks like something eclipses the frame from the right. I' d have said the underexposure was worse than just forgetting to open up when the sun went in. I don't think anyone would miss that particular camera.

Rocky mountain labs, among others, do some of the obsolete processes. I sent them an Ektachrome 160G a few years ago. It's anything from about $20 a go IIRC. It can take months while they wait for enough film to do a run. Frank Bruinsma's Dutch lab http://www.super8.nl/english/e_index.htm also does.

It must be good- it's a Bentley.

A car alternator puts out about 600W at medium revs but only about 200 at idle. Don't even think about disconnecting the battery to use the alternator output directly. The car electronics and engine control unit will object expensively. Unless you have an old car, in which case you have a decent unblimped genny.

That 750k rig certainly was impressive when it burnt down the 'Overlook' set.

Twenty years or so ago there was a company offering 35mm. cine film cut into still camera loads, processed and returned with prints or slides. It never really caught on, presumably because of some of the problems mentioned above. I bet more than a few C-41 labs got them by accident and ended up with remjet-clogged machines.

A dioptre for extra eyesight correction?

You're not actually supposed to use the rewinds to transport the film, especially with multiple strands. You use the handle or motor on the synchroniser, the film and mag drop into bins, and you wind it onto the reels every 50-100' or so.

It got a bad press here for libelling the first officer, William Murdoch, whom Cameron had taking bribes, committing murder and then suicide. None of these things happened and Murdoch was in fact something of a hero by all reports. Cameron eventually donated £5000 to a prize in Murdoch's memory. We also got a bit irked by the anti-English tone and De Caprio's fake Oirishness. But mainly, the problem is it's just so long.

Keep us posted. I for one am envious. Where did you get it, and was it very cheap?

Bleach bypass?

When Kubrick first supervised the video transfer of 'Dr. Strangelove' he reportedly left some scenes in 1.33. IIRC the NFT showed it in 1.66 at its '99 retrospective.

The key is only a mechanical lever. Anything that fits snug in the slot and comes out again should do. I used to use an English 2p piece on my first camera. You can tell it's working by looking at the meter needle, or by looking through the front element- you should be able to see the filter move. You could use daylight film, but the camera needs to be able to read the ASA correctly from the cartridge.

Try their forum here http://www.forumromanum.de/member/forum/fo...8135&threadid=2

I thought of this for my K3, but from what I can see the entire bayo mount would have to come off and, if my flange focal depth measurements are correct, the M42 mount would have to be flush with the front plate of the camera. I make thatquite a bit of engineering, followed by a FFD check. I bet it'd be cheaper to buy a K-3 with the M42 mount. I'm only keeping mine because I got it for nothing.

Unless you needed a lot of prints, which would be a bit unusual in 16mm. these days, you could strike from the original and save two generations. Widescreen masking can be done as a C-roll on the print. There's no copying stage.

If the film is on a core you'll need a split spool like this http://www.screensound.gov.au/glossary.nsf...ol?OpenDocument to hold it. Either of those rewinds would do but you need a pair, obviously. The small ones might not have enough bench clearance to take a 1000' split spool which I think is the smallest size.

It's not necessarily just a matter of cost. 7285 is not yet supplied in 100' loads in the UK so spooling down would be the only option if you wanted to shoot reversal after the demise of K40. IIRC the daylight spools have the film 'wobbled' from side to side when wound so the film itself acts as a light trap. You'd be ill advised to try to do this when respooling so loading requires even more subdued light than usual. And you don't get as much film; only two integral leaders instead of 8. So it's going to be more like a 90' spool.