Nothing more needs to be said.....

**Alex** · August 18th, 2001, 12:13 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by MovieStuff:
The thing you AREN'T doing is admitting that you said I hated Super 8, which was the basis for this entire charade.

Roger
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Roger: Quit harping on this ridiculous diva diabribe and trite point...I don't care what you think about Super-8, I DO care when you make idiotic statements like the following....

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by MovieStuff:
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?
Roger
[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Roger, I only challenge what you say because you present your opinion as fact....your opinions are in fact just your opinion.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by MovieStuff:

If you get flamed as a result, so be it.
Roger
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No Roger, I was talking about you!

You have been on fuego this whole topic post... you are flaming....I'm just warming up.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by MovieStuff:

You brought this on yourself, Alex. You said I hated Super 8.
Roger
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again. trite, "it's about me" commentary coming from Roger.

You nor I are as important as the format...so quit making it be about you or me.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by MovieStuff:
When people called you on that lie, then you claimed they were ganging up on you.

Roger
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, wrong again...

On the DP topic, near the end I said people were starting to say things that I had already posted, and then saying I was on the opposite side...at which point...I basically stopped posting on the DP topic.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by MovieStuff:

Then you denied claiming I hate Super 8.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Roger, I'm glad you have synthesized the entire argument into whether or not I said you hate Super-8.

Once again...I don't care what you think about Super-8, only when you express your opinion as unrefuteable FACT!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by MovieStuff:

Then when you were called on that lie, too, you retreated into your usual song and dance about how people don't understand you and "woe is you" because people tell you what they think of you.

Roger
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

More bizarreness by you.

I said "I'm glad filmmakers sympathize with a "person" (and I'm beginning to question the use of that word) over a concept.

It does not surprise me that a few filmmakers...(who by the way frequent another forum you are on), sympathize with you, because filmmakers will usually choose a person over a concept.

Now, that is my opinion...no lie there.

It's just my opinion.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by MovieStuff:

Tough.

Everyone understands that you lied, Alex.

Roger
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I had a Super-8 camera for every time you play the "liar" card...I could buy a thousand Canon Scoopics.

And I would give everyone to you....and that's no lie.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by MovieStuff:

I never said I hated Super 8. I never even implied it. I am a huge supporter of Super 8 and have been for over a quarter of a century.

Roger
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have never doubted your credentials...

I have merely challenge you when state your opinion as fact.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by MovieStuff:

If you spent half as much time making super 8 movies as you do trying to bust my chops, you might just find that what's "true" for me is equally true for you, just as it is for anyone that actually MAKES films as opposed to someone that spends all his time in front of a computer critizing others that share this truth.

Roger
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong, I know how a myriad of Super-8 cameras work, and how they all complement each other, and I wouldn't be interested in trying to combine 16mm cameras in the manner I have combined various Super-8mm cameras.

Frankly, I'm not even on the computer right now, my cat is responding to you, I'm in my editing room editing.

(now that is a lie!)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by MovieStuff:

But again, let's not let Alex lead us down the predictable lane of distraction. Did you or did you not say I hated Super 8? And, how about that documentation about K40 35mm motion picture film? We're still waiting...

Roger
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I already responded about the 35mm Kodachrome 40..it was used in several Coors and Coors-lite commercials in the mid 80's for the close-up product shot...and was probably used by other commercial houses as well for the close-up beauty product shot...

The fact that many 16mm and 35mm camera guys don't know this is in fact....laughable...and pathetic.

I saw the Coors, Coors lite commercials on TV, and I thought the product shots just looked absolutely spectacular...

Then an ironic thing happened. I was one of 16 scholarship winners of a Nationwide Internship Contest put on by the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.

Lo and behold, the internship I won was with a commercial production company that was making some if not all of the Coors and Coors lite commercials (the commercial production company also did many commercials for many other products)...

...so one day I asked the Assistant Director who worked on the Coors commercials how they got that extra just amazing look on the Coors "Beauty" product shots.

He laughed and let me in on the secret...they were using Kodachrome 35mm.

Roger, I think the way your mind works, Super-8 limits your final creative vision...but for me, it does not...take that however you want.

-Alex

[This message has been edited by Alex (edited August 17, 2001).]

**MovieStuff** · August 18th, 2001, 01:19 AM

Today's Sesame Street is brought to you by the letter "O" as in "obtuse". wink

Of COURSE this is about me, you moron. You made it about me from the moment you started posting lies about what I thought and what my motives were. So, let's try this again:

Did you or did you not state that I hate Super 8?

Personally, I couldn't care less what YOU think about me, Alex. But I'm not going to let you off the hook so easily. You lied and you know you lied, which is the only reason for your avoidance of the issue. You have made a virtual career out of trying to make me look bad based on the concept that "I hate super 8" and you now have the balls to try and paint yourself as the victim here.

I now admit that my previous characterization of you as "an intellectual coward" was uncalled for. There's nothing intellectual about you at all, it would seem; only cowardess. And your story about 35mm K40 with motion picture perfs is nothing but a tall tale; one of many that you've posted in an attempt to bolster your rapidly sagging credibility.

I checked with Kodak.

You lied to this forum.

Just like you lied to the original DP poster when you said 16mm would be impossible due to a whole list of bogus techical reasons. Just like you lied when you said I hated Super 8.

You are a liar first and a film maker second, it would seem. But then, everyone needs a hobby, right Alex?

Roger

------------------
Roger Evans
MovieStuff http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/moviestuff.html

[This message has been edited by MovieStuff (edited August 17, 2001).]

**Alex** · August 18th, 2001, 01:56 AM

Roger, that was pretty funny.

-Alex

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

**jocko** · August 18th, 2001, 10:15 AM

K-40 in 35mm motion picture stock?..in the 10 years I directed Commercials(1984-1994)..I never heard of K-40 in 35mm..16mm yes...I could have used that for a PEPSI spot that I did smile

Hmmm..What lab did the processing?..

Neil
JOCKO FILMS

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

[This message has been edited by jocko (edited August 19, 2001).]

**Alex** · August 18th, 2001, 10:36 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by jocko:
K-40 in 35mm motion picture stock?..in the 10 years I directed Commercials(1984-1994)..I never heard of K-40 in 35mm..16mm yes...I could have used that for a PEPSI spot that I did.
Hmmm..What lab did the processing?..

Neil
JOCKO FILMS
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This commercial company used CFI in Hollywood extensively...but I don't know if CFI could have handled Kodachrome 40.

Kodachrome 40 really is a logical film stock choice for a product shot.

Generally speaking, a product shot is about the product, so you immediately reduce the complexities of matching contrast values of actors and the background that could up during wide shots.

I assumed the AD talking 35mm Kodachrome...just imagine if it was 16mm Kodachrome, the shots I remember just looked phenomenal...

hey, if they could get that with 16mm Kodachrome instead of 35mm...that just means Kodachrome is that much better....although I remember the AD saying a "special run" of 35mm Kodachrome.

I haven't seen the AD in over 10 years.

Too bad Kodak personnel don't frequent this board.

-Alex

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

**MovieStuff** · August 18th, 2001, 11:50 AM

Yeah, too bad, eh Alex?

Here are very good reasons that shooting in Kodachrome would not only be unnecessary, but would be frought with potential problems that would not make it worth the trouble.

1) The registration of K40 would be problematic in 35mm motion picture cameras due to the difference in sprocket hole size and shape. (You say it was a special run, but that is second hand info not supported by Kodak's records)

2) The slow turn around in processing of K40 (even slide film for tests) would make the production more expensive than needed.

3) Rank transfers at that time (80's) used pick up tube scanners and not solid state scanners making Kodachrome unfavorable for transferring to video due to its high contrast.

4) Kodachrome is a positive one step reversal process. As such, it ends up looking like a print pulled from a negative, with the same limited dynamic range and contrast.

(I am not implying that negative has a limited dynamic range; it has plenty. But print stock is notoriously limited in what it can reproduce which is why a lot of today's newbie DPs that have only had their material Ranked are surprised to find that it doesn't print worth beans due to a loss of shadow and highlite detail.)

This increase in contrast effectively makes something shot on negative and printed look identical to reversal. Therefore, there would be no NEED to shoot on Kodachrome just to get a "reversal look" when they could simply pull a print. (which, in fact, was a common practice for the "reversal look" before the advent of easy computer manipulation)

Sorry, Alex, but I think the AD was pulling your leg or trying to impress you with "inside info". But more to the point, I find it odd that you chatise me for "presenting my opinion as fact" when you think nothing of repeating illogical second hand, unsupported information to bolster your position in a discussion. And, since you KNEW it was only my opinion, the idea of it being presented as "fact" obviously doesn't wash. Unlike you, I try and fool no one with the information I present. It is either factual information or it is my opinion; the difference of which is so clear that even you can make the distinction, it would seem.

Roger "I hate Super 8" Evans

**Alex** · August 18th, 2001, 12:29 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by MovieStuff:

Here are very good reasons that shooting in Kodachrome would not only be unnecessary, but would be frought with potential problems that would not make it worth the trouble.

1) The registration of K40 would be problematic in 35mm motion picture cameras due to the difference in sprocket hole size and shape. (You say it was a special run, but that is second hand info not supported by Kodak's records)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pro 8mm comes from 35mm stock..and it's slit...so if Kodachrome 40 exists, and has also been slit from 35mm stock...

then all Kodak needs to do is just take the original unpunched and unslit Kodachrome stock, and put it the same machine that punches the sprockets for the 35mm negative...doesn't seem to complicated really.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by MovieStuff:

2) The slow turn around in processing of K40 (even slide film for tests) would make the production more expensive than needed.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not true, many Los Angeles area labs in the 80's were doing Kodachrome slide stills, in as little as 3 hours....

I don't know who would have developed 35mm kodachrome motion picture film, however it is possible the same labs doing 35mm kodachrome stills could also do a roll of Motion-Picture Kodachrome film.

A & I in Hollywood for a short while did Super-8 kodachrome 40, but apparently the results were not consistent and they wanted Super-8 sound to do all the prep work...it became a big pain.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by MovieStuff:

3) Rank transfers at that time (80's) used pick up tube scanners and not solid state scanners making Kodachrome unfavorable for transferring to video due to its high contrast.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I saw spectacular Rank Cintel transfers of Super-8mm Kodachrome 40 as far back as 1981 at a company called Versatile Video in Palo Alto.

I think it would be fair to assume that 35mm Kodachrome, or even 16mm Kodachrome would transfer with even better results.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by MovieStuff:

4) Kodachrome is a positive one step reversal process. As such, it ends up looking like a print pulled from a negative, with the same limited dynamic range and contrast.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So now you are equating Kodachrome with second generation negative stock...I suppose a second generation Pro-8mm film stock printed to another film stock would look equal to first generation Super-8mm Kodachrome 40...lets ask Matt what he thinks about that one.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by MovieStuff:

(I am not implying that negative has a limited dynamic range; it has plenty. But print stock is notoriously limited in what it can reproduce which is why a lot of today's newbie DPs that have only had their material Ranked are surprised to find that it doesn't print worth beans due to a loss of shadow and highlite detail.)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kodak switched about a year and a half ago to a very contrasty print stock because it looked "richer" and had truer blacks.

In the process, they fucked over every DP who was shooting a film at that time and was lighting to the strengths of the film stock they were using, unaware that the new and "improved" print stock would not be compatible.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by MovieStuff:

This increase in contrast effectively makes something shot on negative and printed look identical to reversal. Therefore, there would be no NEED to shoot on Kodachrome just to get a "reversal look" when they could simply pull a print. (which, in fact, was a common practice for the "reversal look" before the advent of easy computer manipulation)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, you are minimizing the value and beauty of Kodachrome 40...go listen to "please don't take my Kodachrome away"

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by MovieStuff:

Sorry, Alex, but I think the AD was pulling your leg or trying to impress you with "inside info". But more to the point, I find it odd that you chatise me for "presenting my opinion as fact" when you think nothing of repeating illogical second hand, unsupported information to bolster your position in a discussion. And, since you KNEW it was only my opinion, the idea of it being presented as "fact" obviously doesn't wash. Unlike you, I try and fool no one with the information I present. It is either factual information or it is my opinion; the difference of which is so clear that even you can make the distinction, it would seem.

Roger "I hate Super 8" Evans<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting concept, science over art.

I took my original opinion (art) of a product-shot I saw on television of a Coors Beer Bottle....which looked so spectacular I wondered if they were doing something "different".

Than an AD who at that time worked on at least some of the Coors commercials tells me they used either 35mm or 16mm Kodachrome for the product shots only.... (I think he said 35mm Kodachrome, but I may have assumed that because they only shoot 35mm) and answers my question so spontaneously I just don't think he made it up....and you accuse me of mixing fact with fiction....

All I can do is tell what I observed, and what I vividly remember the AD (assistant director) telling me.

Your technical explanations for Kodachrome 40 may sound technically correct...but I don't think they pan out artistically speaking.

-Alex

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

**MovieStuff** · August 18th, 2001, 04:04 PM

Camera guy,

I agree. More to the point, this entire affair is a monumental waste of time. Therefore, I will state my piece and Alex can have the last say:

Alex,

You made this entire discussion about credibility and alterior motives when you started making claims that questioned mine. As such, anyone can share an experience and not be a liar. However, you presented as fact that 35mm K40 was used for commercials to prop up a pointless point. When it was revealed that Kodak doesn't produce K40 with 35mm perfs, then your story changed to "it was a special run". Then when it was revealed that Kodak has no record of any such special order but that 16mm Kodachrome has always existed, your story changed to "it was either 35mm OR 16mm" which would be inconsistent with your previous claim that "it was a special run". Your lack of consistency is what makes your story suspect, not the fact that you shared an experience.

As far as Kodak having no motivation to reveal such a special run, you are only speculating, as always. Kodak has no reason to lie. THEY aren't trying to impress anyone.

But again, we're still waiting for that answer. Did you or did you not say I hated Super 8? Pretty simple question, don't you think, Alex? As this is the last post from me relating to this question, you have this one last chance to come clean. Otherwise, everyone that has bothered reading this will know where your credibility stands.

Roger

------------------
Roger Evans
MovieStuff
http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/moviestuff/html

**Alex** · August 18th, 2001, 05:15 PM

Roger, you are a moron.

enuff said.

Alex

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

**MovieStuff** · August 18th, 2001, 05:55 PM

Well, THAT certainly enhances your credibility, Alex. Very clever.

------------------
Roger Evans
MovieStuff
http://www.afterimagephoto.tv/moviestuff/html

Thread: Nothing more needs to be said.....

Thread Tools

Display

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions