Matt Pacini's Movie

**MovieStuff** · October 8th, 2003, 11:31 PM

Originally posted by Reality Check:

The only thing that makes one wonder is why some individual who manufactures some kind of home movie tranfer machines is hanging around on a web board taking shots at people he's never even met.

A better question is why you defend someone you never met when an obvious question of ethics hangs in the air over his head? Surely you've read the threads that deal with this: Alex interfered with someone's ebay auction and that was wrong. Period.

Now, it doesn't really matter if Matt's camera was a total piece of junk any more than it matters if someone thinks that his movie is a total piece of junk. Any business dealings are between Matt and his ebay bidder. Alex had no right to interfere and the fact that he WON'T admit that is why he's getting a taste of his own medicine now. How would YOU feel if you put something on ebay for sale and someone interfered with YOUR auction?

Regarding Matt's description of his movie versus how he felt about it; what's not to understand? The movie is what it is and Matt is certainly proud of the fact that he completed it just as ANYONE should be proud of completing their first big film. In this business, there a LOT of talkers and not many doers. My hat's off to anyone that tries to make their dream come true, even if they fail and make dumbasss mistakes.

But, regardless of whether his film is good or bad, Matt had his belly full of dealing with the headaches associated with it just as he had his belly full of the headaches associated with modifying his camera. There is no "association", implied or otherwise, between his ebay description of the movie and his experience in making it.

Should Alex "warn" the people buying Matt's movie that it might not be any good just as Alex "warned" that Matt's camera mod was suspect? To what degree Matt was successful with either isn't up to you, me or (in particular) Alex to decide, is it? That is for Matt and his buyer to deal with, exclusively. For all I know, Matt's modification of the camera was a complete failure but, even if I had first hand knowledge of such, it would not be MY place to interfere in his auction.

And that's the real point here. My history with Alex includes his attempt to publically imply that I would take advantage of a customer. This is unforgivable and Alex has refused to take responsibilty for his actions, just as he refuses to do the same here. He gives excuses and lame rationalizations but no apology and no admission of guilt. In fact, he has publically stated that he doesn't believe in apologies. So much for social skills but holding such a firm belief system has a price to pay. It just seems beyond reason that Alex can go though life without apologizing to anyone that he offends and then act surprised when people get fed up with him.

So, when you ask what right I have to hassle a moderator that I don't know, what right did Alex have to hassle Matt? Why is one okay and the other not? If Alex has the right to hassle Matt by interfering in Matt's auction, I certainly reserve the right to hassle Alex for doing so. The day Alex admits that he was wrong is the day I'll stop asking him this simple question:

Alex, why did you interfere in Matt Pacini's auction?

**cameraguy** · October 9th, 2003, 01:51 AM

Originally posted by Alex:

And I'm not totally sure about this, but I think the new ektachrome Super-8 stock has only been out for 3 years max, so it sounds like it wasn't around for your film shoot.

If somebody knows when the new Ektachrome film stock was actually released, I would appreciate knowing.

This info is not hard to find. It came out in 1997 (possible early 1998). And you stated earlier that it is a new formulation which it is not. It is actually a 1970's stock packaged for the first time in Super 8 6 years ago.

I've never shot the stuff myself but I imagine next to well shot K40 it's got to look like **** . Your time exposure stuff, while it looks cool, only proves that Ektachrome VNF looks good shooting like that. Doesn't help someone shooting interiors of actors.

**jukkasil** · October 9th, 2003, 02:11 AM

Simple Question:

How many features Alex has shot with super 8?

And that Reality whatever-guy?

Anyway they can say Matt's feature is pure s h i t just looking one picture captured from movie, that's amazing!

**Alex** · October 9th, 2003, 02:41 AM

This might be a language barrier issue, jukkasil. I have not commented on Matt's movie at all. I was commenting on the pictures Matt included on his ebay auction where he is selling vhs copies of his movie.

I asked Matt to clarify if the pictures are from the actual movie film or not. I don't think they are, but if Matt would like to clear this issue up, that's fine by me.

**Alex** · October 9th, 2003, 02:48 AM

cameraguy, to quote Roger's new favorite phrase I guess that's a "distinction without a difference." [img]wink.gif[/img] The new Ektachrome is vastly superior to Ektachrome type g and it's also superior to the previous Ektachrome Super-8 that Kodak was selling pre-1997, the Ektachrome 160 Type A film.

I saw someone's outdoor film project that was shot with 7240, and it looked real good. The grain is a lot tighter than the previous Ektachromes. Is it good enough for use in a Super-8 feature, probably, but I can't say for sure.

**MovieStuff** · October 9th, 2003, 03:47 AM

Originally posted by Reality Check:

It makes one start to wonder if Alex wasn't a little justified in warning bidders on that camera.

And it makes one wonder even more if "Reality Check" and "Alex" aren't the same person. [img]wink.gif[/img]

**MovieStuff** · October 9th, 2003, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by Alex:

I saw someone's outdoor film project that was shot with 7240, and it looked real good.

To you I'm sure it did.

Originally posted by Alex:
The grain is a lot tighter than the previous Ektachromes.

So? It's still jumbo grain, just not as jumbo and a long way from K40 which is *just* barely adequate.

Originally posted by Alex:

Is it good enough for use in a Super-8 feature, probably, but I can't say for sure.

And you never will.

**Scott Spears** · October 9th, 2003, 01:59 PM

I sense a lot of hostility in this message thread. People, can we please just get along.

That said, I've seen Matt's movie (I bought it off Ebay, because it was shot on Super-8) and yes, it has problems, but I applaud him enthusiastically for making it. I'm a huge fan of Super-8 and have alway dreamed of making a feature on Super-8, but never did. I moved onto 16mm and 35mm, but still dabble in S-8. Super-8 has many technical issues which 16mm & 35mm don't have so anybody that overcomes those deserves some praise. Anybody who starts and completes a first feature gets my thumbs up.

Regarding his stills on Ebay, I didn't buy the movie based on the stills. I bought because it was shot on Super-8. Yes the quality ain't that great. I'd love to know how many people buy the movie blindly, just to buy a movie and how many buy because of it's a Super-8 feature. Matt, if you have any idea, chime in and let us know?

As to the Ektakrome issue, people's ideas on how much grain is acceptable is subjective. Nobody's right and noboby's wrong. Personally, I'm not a big fan of grain, unless it's for an effect, so I avoid E-125 & E-160. It sounds like Matt went with some general posting Alex made without doing testing. I've been there and done that and sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. I saw the footage and wasn't as appauled as I thougt I would, but the k-40 did look better. Then again, Matt would have had to lug around a much larger lighting package if he'd shot all k-40.

I'll stay out of the rest of this except to say, that I've known Alex for close to 10 years and find him a passionate imagemaker. He does love Super-8. Is he opinionated? Yes. But aren't we all? I've only corresponded via email with Matt, but I think he too is passionate about filmmaking. Matt has opinions too. Some I like, some I don't.

I hope that everybody can keep this civil and on topic.

Scott

blue demon · October 9th, 2003, 02:37 PM

this is more like it. now we're on topic. let's talk about the movie. what was good and what was bad about it, scott???

would it be possible to make a dupe for alex to have a look?

**Alex** · October 9th, 2003, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by Scott Spears:
I sense a lot of hostility in this message thread. People, can we please just get along.
Scott

Scott, Roger is on a mission. He wants me to ban him to prove some false, idiotic point from two years ago. In the meantime, this is all one big joke to him where he can be as abusive and aggressive as he wants and if he gets banned, he'll simply say his point was proven.

Originally posted by Scott Spears:

It sounds like Matt went with some general posting Alex made without doing testing. I've been there and done that and sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.
Scott

No, No, No. My pro ektachrome comments are related to the 7240, and were made well after Matt shot his movie.
I'd like to hear Matt state that he actually shot the 7240, for the record. If he did not, than he should acknowledge that his experience was with the previous Ektachrome stocks.

Originally posted by Scott Spears:

I hope that everybody can keep this civil and on topic.

Scott

That does not appear to be on the agenda for Matt and Roger.