Nothing more needs to be said.....

[Alex]

Posted on another forum.....


Posted by
Phillip F.

Re: To Moviestuff

Hey Roger,
I just went to another forum and read a post (an argument actually) that you were in with one of the members.

The DP discussion ring a bell? Anyway, that is THE reason that I left that board.

Not because of your posts, on the contrary, because of closed minded individuals that seem to plague that website's forum.

I'm glad that you are a member of this forum and are one of the many who are just wanting to sit back and talk about movie stuff (no pun intended). Anyhow, for a "long haired hippie" you're okay.

Thanks.
Phil


MovieStuff:

Yes, it was all rather distasteful. At first, I thought it was a put on. Then the guy started getting insulting, accusing me of all kinds of things, not the least absurd was that "I hated Super 8".

I like Super 8, but I don't think ANYONE shoots Super 8 because they prefer it.

Everyone would love to shoot a larger format, but people love super 8 because it's the cheapest thing out there that still looks like film. If 16mm equipment were as cheap and the film were as cheap, there wouldn't be any Super 8 discussion boards.

That's not "anti-Super 8", it's just true. I mean, I don't know anyone shooting Super 8 that demands Kodachrome 40 in 16mm, once they step up to that format, you know?

Super 8's a tricky format to shoot, which means I respect a decent product created in Super 8 even more, because I know first hand how hard it is to work with.

In fact, I'll go so far as to say that EVERYONE that shoots super 8 has said, at one time or another, "Man, I HATE super 8!"

Wearing my hair short these days. Too hot.
Roger


Phillip F.

I agree with you. I loved shooting in 16mm but for the time being super 8 suites me just fine. No complaints. I also didn't know you were the one who made the Jet Benney Show. You'll be happy to know that I just recently rented it from a local Blockbuster video.

How hard was it to get distribution through Miramax? Right now I use Sub Rosa Studios but Miramax is a bigger name. Was it hard?

Phil


Bloomsday:

Didn't Sub Rosa go through some sort of scandal involving either the owner or someone who was stealing from the owner of the studio?

Is it a B-movies label?

Marc S.

P.S. That Alex guy on Hostboard comes up with the most absurd ideas. Did you see the one where he was trying to get ahold of a digital frame rate tester so that he could determine the exact (fluctuating) frame rate of his Super 8 camera, for the purpose of telling the Rank transfer house to transfer at some absurd, unconventional 22.78 frames per second or whatever his camera happened to be feeling that day?
Hahahaha!!!! Yeah, that'll save time in post!
Bloomsday

just had this brilliant idea. If only there was some way to hook up the super 8 camera flash socket to the Rank transfer machine. That way the Rank could slave to the camera and the audio that I recorded a few
weeks earlier would be a closer match to the resulting video footage! Why hasn't anyone ever thought of this before?!?!??!?!

Marc S.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


My turn now.....

Let me just say that if 16mm equipment were just as cheap as Super-8mm, and if 16mm film were as cheap as Super-8...

I would still shoot Super-8.

Roger states above "I like Super 8, but I don't think ANYONE shoots Super 8 because they prefer it".

And whenever I have responded and disagreed to the above sentiment...Roger suddenly says I am attacking him.

For my purposes, until 16mm cameras have the same built in features that Super-8 cameras have, I prefer Super-8 for numerous situations.

Roger makes a sweeping and all encompassing statement such as....

"If 16mm equipment were as cheap and the film were as cheap, there wouldn't be any Super 8 discussion boards."

....then will get upset if I point this out and disagree with it....and disagree with on a Super-8 board.

Why give an opinion that 16mm is preferable to Super-8 AS AN ABSOLUTE on a Super-8 board?

If Roger states that as an opinion NOT GROUND in absoluteness......

then he gets disagreement from me, but he won't take it personally because it's just two people with differing opinions.

But when the 16mm versus Super 8mm is stated as an absolute, and the subsequnent reply is stated as a disagreeing absolute, that is how discussions grow terse.

I only went to this other board because of Awand's Kodak's petition, wasn't looking for trouble, which makes this topic being discussed on that forum feel like an unnecessary after the fact sucker punch against me....and behind my back.

In response to some of the comments above.....

......I have supervised rank-cintel transfer sessions and when film is not shot at crystal speed, matching the film transfer speed closely to the original filming camera speed is one way of minimizing drift.

It just is.

AND...

.....35mm KODACHROME-40 IS THE SECRET BEHIND SOME BEER COMMERICALS, especially the "Beauty" (product) close-up shots...evidently a well kept secret even to the above posters that say that no one likes shooting Kodachrome 40 in 16mm or 35mm.

One reason not mentioned about not shooting Kodachrome 40 in 16mm and 35mm is there is less depth of field in 16mm and even less in 35mm, so the slower the film's ASA the more susceptible you are to out of focus shots.

Some of the most profoundly beautiful films of the 50's were shot with technicolor, which, in a lot ways, was really like Kodachrome 40.

Coors-lite Beer used 35mm Kodachrome 40 for their beauty product shots in the mid 80's...don't know if they still do.

So in fact, Kodachrome 40 is revered by diverse groups of people, not just Super-8 fans.

The above postes comment on one topic thread as an excuse to not frequent this board.

One topic causes the other 1,000 topics to wreak also ???

It probably is just a tactic by another board that has less activity than this one.

Roger's keeps personalizing my remarks as "attacks" against him.

The underpinning issue of 16mm superiority to Super-8 was NEVER "about Roger"...therefore, it was never personal....

...and I never said Roger hates Super-8mm as he states above.

I don't believe a philosophy that states people ONLY shoot Super-8mm because it is cheaper should be stated as anything other than an OPINION...

...and therefore should not be posted as an unchallengeable truth...as Roger did.

This is how the "discussion" started.

I think part of the reason there is talk about "not being a part of this board" has to do with the number of posters on each board.

This board has more posters and traffic. That does not make this a better board, but it makes this board more subject to attacks from other boards about "leaving" this board and never coming back!

Most of those posters also are on the other board, and frankly, it was a way to show support for Roger, who also posts there.

Support is a beautiful thing.

The unwritten peace accord that I was following was to let the DP topic post drift to the bottom of the archives...

......people have a right to slam anew, and I have a right to respond...

....however...

I don't need to fight about this anymore.

-Alex



[This message has been edited by Alex (edited August 16, 2001).]

[Hanthx]

WHAT A CROCK OF SHIT!

I am really dissapointed.
Nothing I hate more than back stabbers.
I like to meet Philip and Marc in person, and show them how close minded I am.

Scott



[This message has been edited by Hanthx (edited August 16, 2001).]

[Alex]

I refrained from including Chas's comment from the other forum.

I like Chas...even though he called me an idiot on the other forum.

He definitely is a loyal bird....



Loyalty fascinates me....

How much loyalty does one give to another human being simply because that person agrees with you or is nice to you ?

And do we EVER fight for a concept or philosophy over the loyalty of a friend ?

Just tonight, I'm watching the news...and there is a story about the new "Big-Brother" still-cameras they are putting at "dangerous" intersections to stop drivers from going through red lights.

The cameras take pictures of cars that go through red-lights, a copy of the picture is mailed to the unsuspecting driver a month later, and they must pay a $300 fine!

OUCH!

This particular news story is about a judge who is about to disqualify over 300 tickets of drivers who were allegedly caught on film going through a red light at a busy intersection.

The news story includes an interview with a woman who had gotten the shock of her life when she got a photo in the mail one month later of her allegedly going through a red light.

She paid the $300.00 fine.

When the reporter asked if she is more careful in that intersection now, her answer was provocative...

"I avoid the intersection"

Now, the editor of this news story has immense power, and wielded it with their editing choices.

The editor never revealed whether or not the woman believed she got the ticket because she actually was caught going through a red-light, or if she believed it was a mistake.
(typical news story, cut down so much you lose the topic!)

If she believes it was a mistake, then she has a legitimate reason to avoid the intersection since she has no way to refute a photo that shows her either speeding or running a red-light or both...

(keep in mind, I think the photo may not be able to be completely accurate in the speed it assesses her car was traveling at NOR whether the light was actually red for her)

....but if we assume for a moment that she was caught going through a red light...her answer of "I now avoid that intersection" is fascinating.

She could just as easily have said, I try a little harder to not go through a red light!

But she didn't....why?

...probably because she feels her "freedom" is being" suppressed.

By the way, red-light runners are the number one cause of accidents in LA, and apparently, red-light runners were reduced by 66% AFTER the Big Brother camera was installed at that intersection.

So, which won out between the battle of "loyalty versus supporting a concept" ?

For this person who got the ticket, it appears that loyalty to ones-self was dramatically more important than just not running through a red-light.

So this person will avoid the intersection whenever possible because it stops her from being "free".

Don't most of us normally choose personal freedom over the protection of a concept?

-Alex

By the way, I think the whole idea of ticketing someone merely from a photo taken by a machine is so evil and wrong...but that aspect is not relevant to the above premise.





[This message has been edited by Alex (edited August 16, 2001).]

[mattias]

yeah, i don't think they are being fair either. and to be honest, i've found some really "narrow minded" people with "absurd ideas" over there too...

> I have supervised rank-cintel transfer sessions and when film is not shot at crystal speed, matching the film transfer speed closely to the original filming camera speed is one way of minimizing drift.

no way. you've dreamed this or simply misunderstood. well, we already had this discussion, and i don't think i can explain since you complain about me being too "technical" every time i try... ;-)

/matt

[MovieStuff]

Alex,

Here are the facts:

1) You DID attack me and launched a serious attempt at character assasination when you started losing the DP argument.

2) I clearly said that I respected anything decent shot in Super 8 because I know how hard it is to work in. This is a HUGE compliment unless you actually think Super 8 is easy to work in. Do you? Oh, that's right, you never use actors and do only experimental films....

3) This discussion board, as well as most others that I have seen, is preoccupied with solving problems related to super 8 that are non issues in 16mm, like grain, synch, decent transfers, effects, focus, camera noise, sound, etc. Would discussion boards for Super 8 still exist if 16mm gear and film were as cheap as Super 8? If they did, they would be talking about totally different things. Therefore a discussion board like THIS one would clearly not be around; perhaps in name only but not content because there would be no reason.

4) I CLEARLY said "I like Super 8, but I don't think ANYONE shoots Super 8 because they prefer it". I did NOT say that I hated Super 8. I also said I don't THINK anyone shoots super 8 because they prefer it. I did not state this as a "sweeping fact". This is my opinion that I am free to express based on my own experience and from talking with other super 8 film makers. If you don't like it, fuck off; but don't misquote me.

5) Please back up your statements about commercials shot in 35mm K40 with documentation (articles, journals, dates, etc). For someone with over "20 years experience" you seem totally unaware that the perforations on transparency stock and motion piture film have different shapes and that transparency film does not lend itself to using in 35mm motion picture cameras due to registration issues. I checked with Kodak and they have no K40 motion picture stock listed in their catalogs that I have seen.

Beyond that, I never made an issue about the slow speed of K40 (another straw man argument, Alex). And, for what it's worth, product shots are produced in 16mm and 35mm all the time on slow stocks using motion control equipment where the speed of the film has no bearing on the ease of the shoot. So, your examples regarding people's "reverence" about K40 in 35mm and 16mm aren't even relevant, unless you can back them up with documentation. If you show me an article or a passage in a journal where they used K40 in a 35mm film shoot, I will admit you were right. Until then, I think you're just making it up while you go, as usual.

6) I stand by my statement that probably everyone that shoots super 8 has said, at one time or another, "I hate super 8." Why? Because of its own inherent characteristics and problems. People have also said, "I hate video", "I hate 16mm", "I hate 35mm." My friend that went to work for Imax wrote me and said, "I hate working in Imax." I think anyone that pushes the medium to do new things and/or pushes themselves in the process will feel the frustration of the medium's inherent limitations. Too bad you can't relate to this, Alex.

As far as all your other nonsense, again, you try and blame me for things that other people say or for what other people think of you. They must think that for a reason, Alex; not my fault.

You wrote:

"I never said Roger hates Super-8mm."

You did, Alex. In another topic, you clearly stated,"Now we know why Roger hates Super 8." Are you going to continue denying this statement? Am I going to have to humiliate you AND waste my time by digging through the archives to point it out? I will, so you might as well fess up now and get this charade over with. (unless, of course, you are racing through the archives now to delete the statement)

And finally, you wrote:

"I don't need to fight about this anymore."

Another huge lie, Alex. Just like the one where you REALLY don't want people to read the DP discussion that only you have the power to delete. You are truly pathetic in your obsession to try and win an argument retroactively. Truly, sadly pathetic.

Roger

[This message has been edited by MovieStuff (edited August 16, 2001).]

[norman-normal]

wow, you two really dont like each other do you!

[Alex]

I too don't want to re-visit the previous extra long topic thread.

The context of "hating Super-8" was in terms of after making the movie Jet Benny, and all the work you put in, you would have rather shot 16mm....

About the 35mm kodachrome 40.

I spoke with the Assistant Director of the Beer Commercials, he told me it was a special run of Kodachrome 40 film that Kodak did because the commercial house that requested it had pull and did a lot of film work.

Mr. Obvious, very well stated....except the part about Roger being "spot on"...

But we'll leave it at that.

-Alex




[This message has been edited by Alex (edited August 16, 2001).]

[MovieStuff]

Alex,

Did you or did you not say that I hated Super 8? You first claimed you never did. Now you hedge.

You chicken shit, why don't you just admit that you said I hated super 8, instead of trying to dilute your misrepresentation of me by linking it to Jet Benny? My misgivings about Jet Benny had nothing to do with it being shot in super 8; that's something you have fabricated from whole cloth. My agrivation about Jet Benny was that it was supposed to look cheap and unpolished, REGARDLESS of what format it was shot in. THAT was what I meant when I said I wasn't allowed to do my best work on it because the concept was supposed to look like a cheap movie. Shooting in 16mm would not have made anything easier except the effects. What a dumb ass.

You coveniently leave out the quote where I said we WANTED to shoot in Kodachrome and decided that shooting in Super 8 Kodachrome would be cheaper than shooting in 16mm Kodachrome. And this is what it's all about, here. People don't shoot in Super 8 because they LIKE the technical limitations it puts on them. ALL formats have some kind of inherent limitation. They shoot Super 8 because it's the cheapest thing that still looks like film. Period. If there is an untruth anywhere in that statement, please point it out.

You had also questioned the equipment I produce, specifically the projectors I use for the WorkPrinter and the CineMate. You claimed they weren't the best for their intended purpose. That's funny, I don't recall you purchasing one or even asking any questions about them. Therefore, you have NO idea of how they are made, how they function or what their quality is. MORE disinformation, Alex? Have you even SEEN Jet Benny? Is it just IMPOSSIBLE for you to represent something accurately?

Beyond that, I just got off the phone with Kodak. They have no record of Kodachrome ever being produced in 35mm motion picture format; special order or otherwise. So, where's that documentation, Alex?

But let's not get side tracked, here. Did you or did you not say that I hated Super 8?

Roger

[yak]

maybe we can make a movie out of this.
two persons in the conflict of their lifes.
two people, who love film, not only movies, but film, as an art form, a way of creating reality, on one day they meet inside the mystical webmashine, and they start a fight, a war without a winner, because they love the thing they do, and the war is called <the mm-war>, ok.
keep on fighting, but remember love is betta!

[MrObvious]

MovieStuff>

We know you don't hate super 8. Give it up. Whether Alex said you did or not is totally moot. I love ya, man, but you're not showing the restraint I would have hoped!

Marc S.