Maybe Film-Tech should consider taking on this person as a technical writer.
I'm glad U rated films do not offend, disturb, or harm dead people???
I don't know anything about magnetic sound, but from reading the splicing page, I can only imagine how many errors there are. What the???? is right!
Just for gits and shiggles, he's gotta be talking about acetate film, right? Glue doesn't stick to polyestar, right? (Not that I would ever ever ever try anything like that!)
to run through a projector WTF??
What gives?
quote:
To not mess around, with the old saying "Film is made out of silver, video is made out of rust", and just get down to facts. Honest, checked in reputable books like Oldham's and Haliwells, and this site HAS been checked by the BBC, and is 100% accurate.
See, it IS accurate!
By the way, for anyone reading this thread or especially that website that is confused, we are joking about that website being accurate and having good information! (You never know when someone won't get the joke and start glue-splicing their films.)
------------------
Evans A Criswell
Huntsville-Decatur Movie Theatre Information Site
"What is film's resolution. Infinite. The only breakdown with film is the grain. 16mm film, copied 6 times (The average amount for a 16mm production), on a economy stock is accepted to have a resolution of 1 333 333x1 000 000 (1.3 Million x 1 million). A high quality stock (Kodachrome 25) on the first print is accepted to have a minimum quality of 2.6 billion x 2 billion pixels! That is only with 16mm! The only problem with film is that for every copy, it is accepted the quality halves! That is why you can see grain if you sit close to the screen."
I had only seen one page when I made the first post, I hadn't realised there was more.
I never knew that film had infinate resolution, this is essential reading for all film handlers.
It's a pity that the new Star Wars film wasn't shot om 16mm Kodachrome 25! 5.2*10^18 pixels, (assuming he's using American billions).
Sure beats the Sony camera.
Where does he get this nonsense from? And someone please tell him that film doesn't have pixels.
So it is a joke, well that's a relief. I must admit, the sound page had me fooled, I wasn't quite sure when I read the 'Film Vs Television' bit. I hadn't seen the film splicing tips.
referring to nitrate film (though he doesn't actually call it that):
quote:
You will be able to tell that they are non - saftey films because by now they will smell strongly of vinegar. They also, by now, will be EXTREMELY EXPLOSIVE. Do not move them, because they may just "blow up". They are extremely flammable, because they ARE the same formula as smokeless gunpowder. The only difference is that the gunpowder is cured for several weeks in quite high heats (500 degrees C) However, the time will cure the film, so it reaches it's "prime". This means that you have about 10kg of gunpowder on your hands. An average cannon uses about 50g of gunpowder, so you have enough gunpowder to fire a cannon 200 times (Or 200 cannons once!). You should be able to see why it is dangerous. If you are in the belief it goes past its prime, you are wrong. It doesn't. In fact, it becomes so volatile that anything like a fly landing on the tin will trigger it. (This has been known to happen).
Now, I know that ntirate film isn't the safest material in the world, and I am not an expert in balistics chemistry, but..... this does seem just a little over the top. It almost sounds as if picking up the tin is enough to kill you. I dread to think what the fire officer would say if he saw this .
John
Dennis
And, yes, the web site referenced is very funny.
quote:
OK, now I'm confused. Is that website a joke, or is it *supposed* to be serious? (Obviously the information is bad.)
I've had a good poke around the site, and can't find anything that claims it is anything other than serious. Also, there are available a couple of software packages available for download, and I can't see why a these wuld be there if it were a joke. Also, for all the rubbish, there is some reasonably accurate info aswell, which doesn't make too much sense for a joke. So I am of the opinion that it is serious, but am open to counter arguments.
John
They obviously know quite a bit about film, they are aware of the worm gear problems on the new type B+H projectors for example, most of what they deal with seems to be 16mm, and somewhere there is an example of a positive optical track, but on what appears to be a scan of a length of negative stock. Most people wouldn't have negative stock to scan.
My guess would be a serious amateur film maker, or collector, or possibly a film student.
If they are reading this, perhaps they should consider renaming their site www.film_done_wrong.com.
I think it's a serious site, just one with a lot of misinformation.