"DoN. Nichols" wrote in message
...
On 2013-08-04, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"DoN. Nichols" wrote in message

I've gotten good hand-held shots as slow as 1/15 by holding the
camera
upside down, braced against my forehead instead of my nose. I was a
student filmmaker's technician in college and had some practical
experience with difficult conditions.

Hmm ... with movie film, that would require a bit of tricky
handling, because if projected as shot (but rotated so the images
would
be right-site up), the motion would be backwards. :-)

He liked to tightly control the shooting environment and had me to
hold the lights. We made a music video of Peter, Paul and Mary and had
some conflict with Peter's scriptless 'fly-on-the-wall' stylistic
preference. Yarrow's film project was to released a white rat and then
record its random explorations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_on_the_wall
That applied to some of my work, for reasons other than artistic
opinion.

O.K. *that* requires at least a darkenable room, if not a
made-for-the-purpose darkroom.

And -- I was thinking in terms of the portable photo lab you
mentioned earlier.

The Agfa Brovira paper I was using had a speed around ASA 1, based on
my experiments with making a view camera for it. It wasn't excessively
sensitive to tiny light leaks in a makeshift darkroom.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._50mm_f1.5.jpg

That one looks post-WW-II to me. (But then, I didn't ask when
you were there. :-)

Mine is a IIIc from 1936 or 37, converted to a IIIf like that one.

It really hurts to see that damage. But then I think of the
buzz-bombs hitting London and don't feel quite as bad.

Visible damage remains from the wars of the 1600's.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/39129480@N06/4736003433/

At the start of the war both sides were very careful to avoid bombing
civilians, but as the war became a fight for survival most of the
rules disappeared and the limits of technology drove events.
http://ww2today.com/14th-may-1940-rotterdam-bombed
"The British changed their bombing policy as a consequence, having
previously avoided civilian industrial targets.."
Heinz Guderian claimed that fog above the German river position
blocked the bombers' view of the wave-off flares, and they couldn't be
recalled by radio since they had reeled in their trailing-wire
antennas.
jsw

On 2013-08-06, Jim Wilkins wrote:

[ ... ]

He liked to tightly control the shooting environment and had me to
hold the lights. We made a music video of Peter, Paul and Mary and had
some conflict with Peter's scriptless 'fly-on-the-wall' stylistic
preference. Yarrow's film project was to released a white rat and then
record its random explorations.

That would have been rather unscripted -- and very short if the
white rat was not accustomed to people -- as soon as it could find a
hinding place, end of movie. :-) How did it work into their music? Or
was that a separate project?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_on_the_wall
That applied to some of my work, for reasons other than artistic
opinion.

I'm running too short on time to visit the URLs right now. Too
much work during the day, and too little evening time left for all that
I want to do. (And I *should* be up scanning more negatives, too, but
I'm too tired to do that tonight.

O.K. *that* requires at least a darkenable room, if not a
made-for-the-purpose darkroom.

And -- I was thinking in terms of the portable photo lab you
mentioned earlier.

The Agfa Brovira paper I was using had a speed around ASA 1, based on
my experiments with making a view camera for it. It wasn't excessively
sensitive to tiny light leaks in a makeshift darkroom.

O.K. Done that, but still possible to get a bit of light-strike
on the paper.

I usually used Kodak papers, but the Brovira was the only one I
could find in a contrast grade 6 -- before the variable-contrast papers
came out. And since I was usually pushing my Tri-X, there wasn't much
contrast available in the negatives. (One of the benefits of scanning
them now -- I can get good enough (e.g. recognizable) images from almost
impossible negatives. :-)

When I made a darkroom for the school I was at in the very early
1960s, it included painting the windows black, followed with a flat
black on the walls.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._50mm_f1.5.jpg

That one looks post-WW-II to me. (But then, I didn't ask when
you were there. :-)

Mine is a IIIc from 1936 or 37, converted to a IIIf like that one.

O.K.

It really hurts to see that damage. But then I think of the
buzz-bombs hitting London and don't feel quite as bad.

Visible damage remains from the wars of the 1600's.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/39129480@N06/4736003433/

Again -- skipping the URLs -- sorry.

But the limitations of the technology of the 1600s meant that
you had to take a lot longer to accomplish the same level of
destruction.

At the start of the war both sides were very careful to avoid bombing
civilians, but as the war became a fight for survival most of the
rules disappeared and the limits of technology drove events.
http://ww2today.com/14th-may-1940-rotterdam-bombed
"The British changed their bombing policy as a consequence, having
previously avoided civilian industrial targets.."
Heinz Guderian claimed that fog above the German river position
blocked the bombers' view of the wave-off flares, and they couldn't be
recalled by radio since they had reeled in their trailing-wire
antennas.

Hmm ... trailing-wire antennas -- even when deployed -- would be
rather poor at communicating with the base from which they flew, unless
they made a turn to come from an unexpected direction -- or to adjust to
the wind direction to maximize the accuracy of the bomb drops.

After all -- an end-fire antenna is at its lowest signal
strength.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Remove oil spill source from e-mail
Email: | (KV4PH) Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

Jim Wilkins wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...


Hogan's Heroes is on one of the 'free' OTA subchannels, but I
can't connect to TVGuide.com right now to find it. I get Antenna
TV, ME TV, Retro TV and This TV with a QAM tuner in one of my
computers. OTOH, so is M*A*S*H.

http://www.titantv.com/default.aspx/


Thanks.


I logged in and created a custom lineup to add a station from outside
the Boston metro area, and to delete all the Spanish and shopping
channels.


Hogan's Heroes will be in the 9:00 PM EST slot on ME TV starting
Sept. 2nd.


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
news

Jim Wilkins wrote:


Hogan's Heroes will be in the 9:00 PM EST slot on ME TV starting
Sept. 2nd.

I'd never seen Star Trek TOS in color until Me TV began showing it. I
couldn't tell who was a doomed Red Shirt. The space ships and planets
look good in the remastered CGI.
jsw

Jim Wilkins wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
news

Jim Wilkins wrote:


Hogan's Heroes will be in the 9:00 PM EST slot on ME TV starting
Sept. 2nd.

I'd never seen Star Trek TOS in color until Me TV began showing it. I
couldn't tell who was a doomed Red Shirt. The space ships and planets
look good in the remastered CGI.


I had it in color at the AFRTS TV station I worked at, but our film
chain was B&W, so I rigged up a viewer with a piece of glass and some
tissue paper to watch it in color. The image focused at about five
inches from the projector and gave about a 2" high image. I'm not aware
of any CGI, since it was filmed in the '60s and used all optical effects
of the day. The transporter effect took the lab a full day's work,
every time they used it.

--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

Jim Wilkins wrote:

...I'm not aware
of any CGI, since it was filmed in the '60s and used all optical
effects
of the day. The transporter effect took the lab a full day's work,
every time they used it.

http://www.shadowlocked.com/20110324...rt-of-cgi.html
"Could this be the first time anybody has used CGI with restraint?"
jsw

Jim Wilkins wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

Jim Wilkins wrote:

...I'm not aware
of any CGI, since it was filmed in the '60s and used all optical
effects
of the day. The transporter effect took the lab a full day's work,
every time they used it.

http://www.shadowlocked.com/20110324...rt-of-cgi.html
"Could this be the first time anybody has used CGI with restraint?"
jsw


Now I'm glad I didn't buy the overpriced DVDs. Star Trek was the
best of low budget Science Fiction movies & TV of its day, and CGI
destroys that.


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

"Michael A. Terrell" on Thu, 22 Aug 2013
12:26:30 -0400 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:
Jim Wilkins wrote:
...I'm not aware
of any CGI, since it was filmed in the '60s and used all optical effects
of the day. The transporter effect took the lab a full day's work,
every time they used it.

http://www.shadowlocked.com/201103241644/opinion-features/star-trek-remastered-and-the-subtle-art-of-cgi.html
"Could this be the first time anybody has used CGI with restraint?"
jsw

The serious question asked is not "how much can we do?" but "how
little need we do?"
"An engineer knows he is done, not when there is nothing left to
add, but when there is nothing left to remove."

Now I'm glad I didn't buy the overpriced DVDs. Star Trek was the
best of low budget Science Fiction movies & TV of its day, and CGI
destroys that.

CGI is like car chase and explosions - if you don't know what to
do, throw in a [ fill in the blank]. If done "well" the audience
doesn't notice that the other character is a puppet, a guy in a rubber
suit, or a live capture CGI, or a complete creation - ala Snow White
and the seven dwarves. Or even if it is a guy in street clothes
"pretending" to be the King of the Scots in 11th century Scotland.
If done "badly - you notice. "They're out of ideas, now they'll
jump in the car and drive across town." Blow something up. Have some
more CGI aliens.


--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

pyotr filipivich wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" on Thu, 22 Aug 2013
12:26:30 -0400 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:
Jim Wilkins wrote:
...I'm not aware
of any CGI, since it was filmed in the '60s and used all optical effects
of the day. The transporter effect took the lab a full day's work,
every time they used it.

http://www.shadowlocked.com/201103241644/opinion-features/star-trek-remastered-and-the-subtle-art-of-cgi.html
"Could this be the first time anybody has used CGI with restraint?"
jsw

The serious question asked is not "how much can we do?" but "how
little need we do?"
"An engineer knows he is done, not when there is nothing left to
add, but when there is nothing left to remove."


Early Science Fiction required a mind to enjoy. Too much CGI requires
you to have no mind.


Now I'm glad I didn't buy the overpriced DVDs. Star Trek was the
best of low budget Science Fiction movies & TV of its day, and CGI
destroys that.

CGI is like car chase and explosions - if you don't know what to
do, throw in a [ fill in the blank]. If done "well" the audience
doesn't notice that the other character is a puppet, a guy in a rubber
suit, or a live capture CGI, or a complete creation - ala Snow White
and the seven dwarves. Or even if it is a guy in street clothes
"pretending" to be the King of the Scots in 11th century Scotland.
If done "badly - you notice. "They're out of ideas, now they'll
jump in the car and drive across town." Blow something up. Have some
more CGI aliens.


It's a wonder they don't CGI more stunts into the 'Dukes of Hazard'.

--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 18:54:10 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


pyotr filipivich wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" on Thu, 22 Aug 2013
12:26:30 -0400 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:
Jim Wilkins wrote:
...I'm not aware
of any CGI, since it was filmed in the '60s and used all optical effects
of the day. The transporter effect took the lab a full day's work,
every time they used it.

http://www.shadowlocked.com/201103241644/opinion-features/star-trek-remastered-and-the-subtle-art-of-cgi.html
"Could this be the first time anybody has used CGI with restraint?"
jsw

The serious question asked is not "how much can we do?" but "how
little need we do?"
"An engineer knows he is done, not when there is nothing left to
add, but when there is nothing left to remove."


Early Science Fiction required a mind to enjoy. Too much CGI requires
you to have no mind.

+1


Now I'm glad I didn't buy the overpriced DVDs. Star Trek was the
best of low budget Science Fiction movies & TV of its day, and CGI
destroys that.

CGI is like car chase and explosions - if you don't know what to
do, throw in a [ fill in the blank]. If done "well" the audience
doesn't notice that the other character is a puppet, a guy in a rubber
suit, or a live capture CGI, or a complete creation - ala Snow White
and the seven dwarves. Or even if it is a guy in street clothes
"pretending" to be the King of the Scots in 11th century Scotland.
If done "badly - you notice. "They're out of ideas, now they'll
jump in the car and drive across town." Blow something up. Have some
more CGI aliens.


It's a wonder they don't CGI more stunts into the 'Dukes of Hazard'.

Like bra fasteners melting and...

--
Truth loves to go naked.
--Dr. Thomas Fuller, Gnomologia, 1732

"Michael A. Terrell" on Thu, 22 Aug 2013
18:54:10 -0400 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

pyotr filipivich wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" on Thu, 22 Aug 2013
12:26:30 -0400 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:
Jim Wilkins wrote:
...I'm not aware
of any CGI, since it was filmed in the '60s and used all optical effects
of the day. The transporter effect took the lab a full day's work,
every time they used it.

http://www.shadowlocked.com/201103241644/opinion-features/star-trek-remastered-and-the-subtle-art-of-cgi.html
"Could this be the first time anybody has used CGI with restraint?"
jsw

The serious question asked is not "how much can we do?" but "how
little need we do?"
"An engineer knows he is done, not when there is nothing left to
add, but when there is nothing left to remove."


Early Science Fiction required a mind to enjoy. Too much CGI requires
you to have no mind.

As Douglas Adams said of Hitchhikers - it had to go on Radio. How
else could you have a million robots all singing?


Now I'm glad I didn't buy the overpriced DVDs. Star Trek was the
best of low budget Science Fiction movies & TV of its day, and CGI
destroys that.

CGI is like car chase and explosions - if you don't know what to
do, throw in a [ fill in the blank]. If done "well" the audience
doesn't notice that the other character is a puppet, a guy in a rubber
suit, or a live capture CGI, or a complete creation - ala Snow White
and the seven dwarves. Or even if it is a guy in street clothes
"pretending" to be the King of the Scots in 11th century Scotland.
If done "badly - you notice. "They're out of ideas, now they'll
jump in the car and drive across town." Blow something up. Have some
more CGI aliens.

It's a wonder they don't CGI more stunts into the 'Dukes of Hazard'.

I loved the TV show, but the Movie - them provincial Hollyweirdos
can't tell the difference between Good Old Boys, and Rednecks. The
Dukes were Good Old Boys - not idiots!


--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
news

It's a wonder they don't CGI more stunts into the 'Dukes of
Hazard'.

The CGI changes to Star Trek are minimal and not offensive. They
merely improve the worst of the budget-constrained production values
of the original.

jsw

"Jim Wilkins" on Fri, 23 Aug 2013 08:55:45
-0400 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
news

It's a wonder they don't CGI more stunts into the 'Dukes of
Hazard'.

The CGI changes to Star Trek are minimal and not offensive. They
merely improve the worst of the budget-constrained production values
of the original.

They asked "now how much can we do?" but "How little must we do?"

Two different questions.

I can see using CGI in a remastering to fill out crowd scenes, or
making something "more spectacular" (e.g. the blowing up of the Death
Star).
But sometimes - leave it alone. E.g. when David Bowman goes
inside the monolith in the movie "2001". Leave it.

I would also argue against removing an anachronistic element from
a movie - e.g. an automobile in the background of a western. Really
it would depend on whether the anachronism has become an "Easter Egg"
or not.



--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
...

I would also argue against removing an anachronistic element from
a movie - e.g. an automobile in the background of a western. Really
it would depend on whether the anachronism has become an "Easter
Egg"
or not.
pyotr filipivich

I just watched a Western in which horses charging across a river
toward the camera splash water on the lens.
jsw