Help Identifying Projection Optics Co. lens

Main Page | Report this Page

Movies Forum Index » Movie Technology Forum » Help Identifying Projection Optics Co. lens

Page 2 of 53 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, ... 51, 52, 53 Next

Author

Message

Mike Ackerman

Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2003 3:16 am

Guest

MLUTTHANS wrote:

Quote:

Article about the Fairchild lens that was for sale on eBay.

http://www.tribnet.com/entertainment/at_the_movies/story/4448623p-4434688c.html

--Matt Lutthans, Seattle

This is a severely shortened version of today's front-page article. The
"roadshow version" should be available at the Los Angeles Times website
for a few days. Or search alt.movies.kubrick

Mike Ackerman

Steve Kraus

Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2003 5:04 am

Guest

Mike Ackerman <mackermNOSPAM@mailpuppy.com> wrote:

Quote:

This is a severely shortened version of today's front-page article.
The "roadshow version" should be available at the Los Angeles Times
website for a few days. Or search alt.movies.kubrick

It's online presently at latimes.com (free signup).

He seems to assert that it was both HAL and used for POV shots from HAL's
perspective. Trumbull and others say it was *not* the POV lens. But no
one seems to know if in fact it was the prop used as HAL's eye.

Daniel Haude

Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2003 2:18 pm

Guest

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 22:37:52 +0100,
Michel Hafner <mhafner@mhafner.ch> wrote
in Msg. <3FC3CBB0.57C81395@mhafner.ch>

Quote:

HD 1080p. Way too sharp for DV. Bad film, by the way.

Not to pick a fight, but I thought it was a masterpiece. Of course of the
kind that only von Trier can get away with (and I'm far from loving
anything only because he made it). --Daniel

--
"With me is nothing wrong! And with you?" (from r.a.m.p)

Roland Lataille

Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2003 4:15 pm

Guest

Quote:

Thank you for the information Scott. I just bought six reels (1200 ft
reels numbered 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and reel 8 is 500 ft) of 16mm film for
The Greatest Story Ever Told. At 36 feet per minute that's about 180
minutes. If I had (I wish I did) reels 3 and 4, that would be about
247 minutes. The dvd is 199 minutes. I bought them thinking that they
might have scenes not on the DVD.

I have a friend who normally will transfer the film to DVD or VHS but,
the equipment he uses is in need of repair. Anyone interested in
copying this to video?

Thanks,

Roland Lataille
Cinerama web site:
http://cinerama.topcities.com

Harry Chickpea

Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2003 5:18 pm

Guest

roland.lataille@po.state.ct.us (Roland Lataille) wrote:

Quote:

Are those missing reels the apocrypha? Smile

Martin Hart

Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2003 5:30 pm

Guest

In article <bsCxb.17335$n56.3656@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
screen@SPAMBLOCKfilmteknik.com says...

Quote:

Mike Ackerman <mackermNOSPAM@mailpuppy.com> wrote:
This is a severely shortened version of today's front-page article.
The "roadshow version" should be available at the Los Angeles Times
website for a few days. Or search alt.movies.kubrick

It's online presently at latimes.com (free signup).

He seems to assert that it was both HAL and used for POV shots from HAL's
perspective. Trumbull and others say it was *not* the POV lens. But no
one seems to know if in fact it was the prop used as HAL's eye.

I can't say whether the lens was used as a prop or not, but it appears
to be larger than the lens seen as HAL's eye. The Fairchild 160 degree
lens, based on photos I've seen of it mounted to a Super Panavision
camera, is almost identical in diameter to the Todd-AO bugeye, which
seems larger than the console mounted "eye" on the set. My estimate of
the diameter of the console eye is between four and five inches, whereas
the biggest Todd-AO lens was eight inches and the smaller models were
about seven, and the Fairchild appears to fall in that range. I'd come a
lot closer to believing it was used for HAL's POV shots than as a prop.
I'd think an ultrawide lens built for a Nikon 35mm camera would come a
lot closer to being the right size for the prop.

With memorabilia collectors being what they are, the highest value would
probably be for an item used on the set, rather than a piece of
photographic equipment used to shoot a historic film. I'd like it to be
the other way around, considering some of the stuff I've got in my
collection.

Marty
--
The American WideScreen Museum
Online Archive
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com

Peter H.

Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2003 9:12 pm

Guest

Quote:

Are those missing reels the apocrypha? :-)

VERY good!

Guest

Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2003 9:44 pm

Am I the only one who feels the movie would be improved if even more
reels were missing? Frank

Peter Fraser

Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2003 2:22 am

Guest

Perhaps they should retitle the film as THE GREATEST FAIRY TALE EVER TOLD

Morgan Montague

Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2003 3:15 am

Guest

Perhaps the missing reels will resurrect soon.

"Roland Lataille" <roland.lataille@po.state.ct.us> wrote in message
news:66690eeb.0311281015.726743bb@posting.google.com...

Quote:

snorwood@redballoon.net (Scott Norwood) wrote in message
news:<bob45u$kfo$1@reader2.panix.com>...
In article <66690eeb.0311050710.25a42803@posting.google.com>,
Roland Lataille <roland.lataille@po.state.ct.us> wrote:

I see 8mm, 16mm and 35mm reels of film for sale on EBAY and I'm just
wondering... how many minutes for each reel - specifically 16mm?

What size reel? 16mm reels come in several standard sizes: 100
ft., 200 ft., 400 ft., 800 ft., 1000 ft., 1200 ft., 1600 ft., 2000
ft., and 2300 ft. Sound films run at 36 feet per minute. You do
the math. There are also 4000 ft. and 6000 ft. reels, but those
aren't normally used for shipping and storage.

35mm reels normally come in 1000 ft. and 2000 ft. sizes. Sound
films run at 90 feet per minute. As with 16mm, larger sizes exist,
but are used for projection only, not shipping.

Thank you for the information Scott. I just bought six reels (1200 ft
reels numbered 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and reel 8 is 500 ft) of 16mm film for
The Greatest Story Ever Told. At 36 feet per minute that's about 180
minutes. If I had (I wish I did) reels 3 and 4, that would be about
247 minutes. The dvd is 199 minutes. I bought them thinking that they
might have scenes not on the DVD.

I have a friend who normally will transfer the film to DVD or VHS but,
the equipment he uses is in need of repair. Anyone interested in
copying this to video?

Thanks,

Roland Lataille
Cinerama web site:
http://cinerama.topcities.com

Peter H.

Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2003 4:24 am

Guest

Quote:

Perhaps the missing reels will resurrect soon.

Mary Magdelegne went to open the reel cans, and the reels were gone.

Jeff Joseph

Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2003 6:19 am

Guest

We saw "Master and Commander" today in DLP at the Arclight in Hollywood.
Simply put, it looked awful. Dark, muddy, poor contrast ratios (NO blacks,
of course). Video artifacts galore.

I'm really puzzled as to why any studio or film-maker would allow their film
to be shown this way, especially in a major venue...where Academy voters
live.

Jeff Joseph
SabuCat Productions

Harry Chickpea

Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2003 1:49 pm

Guest

peterh5322@aol.comminch (Peter H.) wrote:

Quote:

Perhaps the missing reels will resurrect soon.

Mary Magdelegne went to open the reel cans, and the reels were gone.

Doubting Thomas poked his finger into the sprocket holes just to make sure it
was film and not memorex.

Kram Sacul

Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2003 9:34 pm

Guest

"Jeff Joseph" <JeffNOSPAM@sabucat.com> wrote in message news:<GEYxb.7837$tM7.2503985170@twister2.starband.net>...

Quote:

We saw "Master and Commander" today in DLP at the Arclight in Hollywood.
Simply put, it looked awful. Dark, muddy, poor contrast ratios (NO blacks,
of course). Video artifacts galore.

Now I gotta see it there. I've never been unsatisfied with any of the
DLP shows I've been to, except maybe Finding Nemo at the El Capitan
(lousy black level). The black levels of the other DLP movies I've
seen were excellent though.

Michel Hafner

Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2003 8:08 am

Guest

Kram Sacul wrote:

Quote:

"Jeff Joseph" <JeffNOSPAM@sabucat.com> wrote in message news:<GEYxb.7837$tM7.2503985170@twister2.starband.net>...
We saw "Master and Commander" today in DLP at the Arclight in Hollywood.
Simply put, it looked awful. Dark, muddy, poor contrast ratios (NO blacks,
of course). Video artifacts galore.

Now I gotta see it there. I've never been unsatisfied with any of the
DLP shows I've been to, except maybe Finding Nemo at the El Capitan
(lousy black level). The black levels of the other DLP movies I've
seen were excellent though.

DLP does not have excellent blacks and probably never will. Excellent
blacks are blacks that are black, not (dark) gray. The only technology
I know with black blacks are high end CRT projectors. The rest does
not measure up, whether it's digital or film prints.

Page 2 of 53 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, ... 51, 52, 53 Next All times are GMT - 5 Hours The time now is Fri Sep 05, 2008 10:45 pm Movies Forum Index