This is topic Upload your random pictures in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=001140

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-09-2002, 11:18 PM:
 
This feature took me a good chunk of researching and tweeking, but it is now complete (as good as I can make it work) and Mark Gulbrandsen has already given it a whirl with success.

From this point on, if you have a picture that you would like to use in your posts, you can click on the link "insert an image into your post" that you will find on the  - and  - and  - pages and upload the file straight from your computer to one of our servers.

Please do pay close attention to the policies for uploading. Using our servers to serve picture files on other websites that you have uploaded here is not acceptable. Consequently, as of today there is to be no more linking offsite to other servers. I will update the FAQ over the weekend to cover this, but the policies should be plenty clear on the upload page.

By the way, this is NOT for uploading your member pictures that appear below your name. Please continue to email those in as normal.

There is one *glitch* in the programming, and that is for some reason the Opera browser will not acknowledge the link. For users of the Opera browser, we have added a new navigational link on the left side to point directly to the upload page.

Please feel free to use this as needed, but do refrain from intentionally uploading needless and excessive amounts of pictures, as that does slow down loading time for the masses on dial-up connections. The idea behind this is to give the members a way to have an image displayed immediately on their post. This also guarantees that the images will always be available currently (in those instances the other servers crash or are overloaded) as well as future availability for the forum archives.

If you would like to see how this works, please use THIS thread to test it out on. THIS thread is the place to bloat up with pictures and for you to make a mistake if you don't understand how it works.  -
 
Posted by Adam Fraser (Member # 1074) on 08-09-2002, 11:38 PM:
 

Just trying it out


 


Posted by Gracia L. Babbidge (Member # 582) on 08-09-2002, 11:59 PM:
 
hmm... I'll give this a whirl...


(razzin frazzin uncooperative chunk of plastic!)



 


Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-10-2002, 12:05 AM:
 
I have fixed the glitch in the instructions. Please upload a different picture (or the same one with a different filename) and try it now.

Adam and Gracia, That code you two pasted is html, which is turned off on the forums. The new upload screen has the proper coding instructions. Sorry about that. My mistake.

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

ALSO OF IMPORTANCE...you cannot upload a picture with a space in it. If you try and upload

bob maar.jpg

it will NOT work. The filenames must not have spaces. Renaming that same picture to

bobmaar.jpg

or

bob_maar.jpg

will work fine.


 


Posted by Jon Miller (Member # 163) on 08-10-2002, 12:36 AM:
 

Guess it works with Internet Exploiter under Mac OS X.
 


Posted by Josh Jones (Member # 447) on 08-10-2002, 12:40 AM:
 
here is a pic I hope they will put on the antique electronic supply catalog next year.:)



Josh


 


Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 08-10-2002, 12:49 AM:
 
If you see the animals below, I guess I got it right!



 


Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 08-10-2002, 12:51 AM:
 
as you can see, I did not..
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-10-2002, 12:54 AM:
 
Wow. Now I can upload an awesome, realistic 3D rendering of Angelina Jolie! Hooray!


Disgusting? Yes. But it looks JUST LIKE HER!


 


Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 08-10-2002, 01:02 AM:
 
Sorry all.


 


Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-10-2002, 01:04 AM:
 
Jason, I'm betting the instructions didn't say to put a space before and after the link.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-10-2002, 01:10 AM:
 
Brad will surely destroy me for this one... his mom just e-mailed me this picture of him from when he was a wee lad!


 


Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 08-10-2002, 01:10 AM:
 

One more try before I go to bed.
 


Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 08-10-2002, 01:11 AM:
 
AHA.

Thanks for the tip Brad.. And Joe, please disregard my email..
 


Posted by Paul Cassidy (Member # 951) on 08-10-2002, 02:19 AM:
 



 


Posted by Jeff Skallan (Member # 891) on 08-10-2002, 02:31 AM:
 
Just trying this out...
 -

A photo of Joe before completing his anger management courses.  -
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-10-2002, 02:38 AM:
 
Awesome!


 


Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 08-10-2002, 02:55 AM:
 
Let's try it:

Hmmm....I must have screwed up. Guess I'll have to read the instructions again.

This is Josh's Akai that I got running for him. Unfortunately, more problems showed up in the relay logic board.


 


Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 08-10-2002, 03:14 AM:
 
Cool.



 


Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-10-2002, 03:21 AM:
 
Paul Cassidy, the instructions are clear, but you are missing two vital steps. You can NOT upload a photo if there is a space in the filename. You HAVE to rename it first. Also you ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO resize your pictures. You cannot upload those pictures that you have been. They are way too big. The restriction is 550 pixels. Yours are 1200 pixels. If you do not understand this, email me.

Weenie Man, you are missing the image tags. They are similar to the boldface tags you used in the last post. You simply skimmed over the image tag instructions after the upload.

Very important everyone...you HAVE to read the rules and instructions for this to work. I am now lowering the filesize to 100K to hopefully catch most of these oversized uploads.


 


Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 08-10-2002, 03:28 AM:
 
Brad, I typed in exactly what the page showed after I uploaded it, and that's what popped up. Did I miss something?
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-10-2002, 03:30 AM:
 
Yup! You had your mind on weenies and didn't read what the page said after the upload completed. Upload it again and be sure to read carefully. Beware, you'll have to rename it for the server to permit it to be uploaded a second time.


 


Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 08-10-2002, 03:38 AM:
 
OK.....

This is a Taliban Homing Rocket being ignited manually.

Ah---got it! Thanks, Brad


 


Posted by Bernard Tonks (Member # 809) on 08-10-2002, 04:49 AM:
 

Radio Caroline, still moored off the Kent coast. Now broadcasts on Satellite, also on the new satellite Worldspace portable radio system.
www.radiocaroline.co.uk


 


Posted by Paul Cassidy (Member # 951) on 08-10-2002, 06:22 AM:
 


 
Posted by Brad Haven (Member # 954) on 08-10-2002, 06:54 AM:
 

mummies boy!!
after numerous tries i finally got it!!



 


Posted by Christopher Duvall (Member # 284) on 08-10-2002, 08:09 AM:
 
Let's do this...
Believe it or not, we found this hot dog in an sealed case of hot dogs that were delivered recently. Hey Paul, since you are the weenie man, have you ever seen one like this?


 


Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 08-10-2002, 11:25 AM:
 
Christopher: That's definitely NOT KOSHER!!! I would return that entire case if I were you!!!

Here's one of my "dirty pictures"


 


Posted by Adam Fraser (Member # 1074) on 08-10-2002, 11:42 AM:
 


 
Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 08-10-2002, 01:56 PM:
 
Christopher, that is gross! I think I have lost my taste for weenies since you posted that one! I wonder if that was shaped by a disgruntled employee at a meat processing facility.

Adam, that is a nice looking booth.


 


Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 08-10-2002, 02:59 PM:
 


 


Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 08-10-2002, 03:39 PM:
 
An old girlfriend...


 


Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 08-10-2002, 04:11 PM:
 
I tried to copy an animated .gif without success.



 


Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 08-10-2002, 04:33 PM:
 
Still picture didn't work because file name has a space in it.
If I delete space, file cannot be found. Solution--go back and
rename file.


 


Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 08-10-2002, 04:35 PM:
 
Not there yet. Can't rework same post, and only administrator can delete one. Maybe if I reboot I can reuse same post area.


EDIT: I deleted previous attempts and went back to my pictures folder and renamed some picture files, shortening titles and eliminating spaces. But I cannot re-use these same posts because clicking on "Insert an image into your post." does nothing when clicked on once that has been done before in this post. That's why
I used up three posts trying. I'll quit since I don't want to use more space. Maybe when I really have a picture I want to post I'll try again or email it to Brad.



 


Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-10-2002, 04:54 PM:
 
Gerard,

The trick is that you have to rename your picture BEFORE you upload. No spaces are allowed in the filename. You can edit your previous post to include a picture. There is no reason to keep posting replies.

EDIT: Gerard it sounds like your browser is having issues. Use the "upload" link on the left side of the screen to upload the file and THEN make or edit your post.


 


Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 08-10-2002, 08:51 PM:
 


 
Posted by George Roher (Member # 91) on 08-10-2002, 09:09 PM:
 
Hopefully this will work...


 


Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 08-10-2002, 09:48 PM:
 
Well, I guess that is one way to make a platter fit in a cramped booth.
 
Posted by German Marin (Member # 918) on 08-10-2002, 10:53 PM:
 
A hurricane from above.


 


Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 08-10-2002, 11:29 PM:
 
Gerard,
I have to hear the explanation behind the AW3 platter you submitted.
 
Posted by Paul Cassidy (Member # 951) on 08-11-2002, 12:30 AM:
 
An Old Ernemann

 
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 08-11-2002, 01:32 AM:
 
Let's see if this'll fly Orville...



 


Posted by Alan Plester (Member # 852) on 08-11-2002, 02:08 AM:
 
Not to good with this , lets see if it works.
 
Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 08-11-2002, 02:18 AM:
 
Here is one for a litte more practice:

This bridge is the Gateway to Whidbey Island, about 3 miles from where I live.


 


Posted by Alan Plester (Member # 852) on 08-11-2002, 02:28 AM:
 
lets try this then.
 -

 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-11-2002, 02:40 AM:
 
George Roher's picture of the platter with the chopped disc looks like Photoshop work to me. I can see where the background was duplicated. Not only that, but check out the background on the left side of the picture. It's all smeary. That just doesn't happen in real life unless you are really drunk!


 


Posted by Jeff Skallan (Member # 891) on 08-11-2002, 02:47 AM:
 
3D movies are awesome!
 
Posted by John Westlund (Member # 913) on 08-11-2002, 02:49 AM:
 
In George's picture the platter also has 4 rollers along the top of the tree which seems odd.
 
Posted by Steven Privett (Member # 718) on 08-11-2002, 03:19 AM:
 


 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-11-2002, 03:21 AM:
 
Ok guys, troubeshooting time here. Go back and check your work...
-------------------
PAGE 1
Jason, you failed to remove the spaces by the IMG tags.

Paul, you never uploaded the picture you are trying to display.
-------------------
PAGE 4
Alan, take a close look at your link...
[IMG]http://www.film-tech.com/ubb/image_uploads//aug06_09.JPG{/img}

Notice anything odd about the brackets on the closing img tag?
-------------------
FHF "Your favorite projector and booth" PAGE 7
Bernard, you failed to use the closing IMG tag. You used [IMG] at the start AND end of your link. You must use [/IMG] to close the link.
-------------------
Everything must be exactly perfect for this to work. If it doesn't work and you think your coding is correct, try to upload the picture again. If the server tells you that the file already exists, then the problem is in your coding. If even one character is off, it won't work.


 


Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 08-11-2002, 03:43 AM:
 
Let me try this...


-Aaron
 


Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 4594) on 08-11-2002, 03:55 AM:
 
For everyone who has asked how my hubby is doing, he's fine. Not necessarily to my liking the burns healed so well that he can grow hair back on his face.... Damnit! haha I hate beards!!!

And this is just a picture that I took, that I like.



 


Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 08-11-2002, 04:19 AM:
 
XXX rewinding without a flash.

XXX rewinding with a flash. Looks like it's not even moving but it is.



 


Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 08-11-2002, 04:21 AM:
 
I bet my pictures were to big. DAMN IT!!!!!!
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-11-2002, 04:23 AM:
 
Like I said, everything must be EXACT. You cannot even change a .jpg to a .JPG or vice versa. (That's a hint Darryl. )
 
Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 08-11-2002, 04:30 AM:
 
thanks Brad, I picked up on that. But I also realized that the picture is to big. Gonna have to resize them and do it again later. I fixed it so the pics will not come on for now.
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-11-2002, 10:46 AM:
 
The best way to resize them is to get a copy of Photoshop and use that. It allows re-sizing to THE EXACT pixel.
So Joe, Is that Brad's screening room in 3-D?
Mark


 


Posted by Alan Plester (Member # 852) on 08-11-2002, 11:58 AM:
 
Hope this works! Should be me ,alan, of banbury (thanx 2 my amazing daughter if it does work ) )
 
Posted by Alan Plester (Member # 852) on 08-11-2002, 12:15 PM:
 
" *&***%^^ " I just new my daughter would be able to do it, when it comes to computers she really does have the upper hand.
*jemz,once again shows dad how 2 do it*
 
Posted by Alan Plester (Member # 852) on 08-11-2002, 12:38 PM:
 
.If this works it will be amazing
 
Posted by Alan Plester (Member # 852) on 08-11-2002, 12:41 PM:
 
Well thats 3 out of 3 and i think ive got the hang of it now.
By the way, thats my daughter, taking out of her dad as usual
 
Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 08-11-2002, 02:39 PM:
 
Ok, here it goes again. Brad I am sending you an email with some info about a problem I had.

XXX rewinding without a flash.


XXX rewinding with a flash. looks like it's not even moving but it is.




 


Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-11-2002, 04:10 PM:
 
Ok here it goes for me...The film rewinding just had to be beat...I have a favorite picture of mine (well recently)

Guess how fast the machine is going!


Well it seems to have worked
------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"


 


Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-11-2002, 08:59 PM:
 
Hey Steve, guess how fast this machine is going!


 


Posted by German Marin (Member # 918) on 08-11-2002, 09:00 PM:
 
I've found this on a used film of D&D.

 
Posted by George Roher (Member # 91) on 08-11-2002, 09:05 PM:
 
Joe, that platter has indeed been digitally enhanced with photoshop. It now meets THX approval. I also have a picture of a six deck model...



 


Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-11-2002, 09:05 PM:
 
I'm going with 24fps (90ft/min) on yours...I see you have found use #247 for the Bevanpoo.

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"
 


Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 08-11-2002, 09:24 PM:
 
OK. I'm giving this a try.

This is not kitty litter. It's kitty litter cake. I took this picture at a work Halloween party on October 31, 1997.

By the way, I could not get the upload feature to work from Opera and had to use the evil Internet Explorer to do it!

------------------
Evans A Criswell
Huntsville-Decatur Movie Theatre Information Site


 


Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-11-2002, 09:41 PM:
 
A picture of Star Trek chicky Jeri Ryan during a visit to my house.


 
Posted by Brian Hogan (Member # 940) on 08-12-2002, 01:46 AM:
 
had to show off my sweet, new computer system

actually, i think my TI-85 calculator has a faster processor... HA! think i got ripped off?


 


Posted by Paul Cunningham (Member # 501) on 08-12-2002, 05:42 AM:
 
Cummins and Wilson projectors, circa 1928



 


Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-12-2002, 06:48 AM:
 
German showed a burned frame of D&D:

They didn't even have it in frame either!

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion


 


Posted by Jonathan Worthing (Member # 803) on 08-12-2002, 07:14 AM:
 
 -

SAFE SEX WORKS
 
Posted by Matthew Bailey (Member # 601) on 08-12-2002, 08:23 AM:
 
How about this,but with Film-Tech in place of ABC?
 
Posted by Steven Privett (Member # 718) on 08-12-2002, 08:28 AM:
 


 
Posted by Paul Cassidy (Member # 951) on 08-12-2002, 08:30 AM:
 


 
Posted by Matthew Bailey (Member # 601) on 08-12-2002, 08:38 AM:
 
[img]1978ABCMovie.jpg[/img]
 
Posted by Matthew Bailey (Member # 601) on 08-12-2002, 08:39 AM:
 
Beginner's luck. Screw it!
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-12-2002, 08:45 AM:
 
Matthew, you didn't use the full link. Just read the entire instructions over carefully and make the image link per the instructions and your upload will work.
 
Posted by Matthew Bailey (Member # 601) on 08-12-2002, 08:48 AM:
 
okay,but first thing:What if your image does not have a website or URL?
 
Posted by Paul Cassidy (Member # 951) on 08-12-2002, 08:58 AM:
 
Is it coming from Outer Space Matthew
 
Posted by Bernard Tonks (Member # 809) on 08-12-2002, 09:16 AM:
 



 


Posted by Matthew Bailey (Member # 601) on 08-12-2002, 09:23 AM:
 
OK here goes.
 
Posted by Matthew Bailey (Member # 601) on 08-12-2002, 09:29 AM:
 
GOT IT! Delete the other image. I intended that to be a test image.
(the one of the Native American Indian)
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-12-2002, 09:33 AM:
 
Matthew: The painting of the Native American with the wolf shows an amazing resemblance. Is the person any relation to you?

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion


 


Posted by Bernard Tonks (Member # 809) on 08-12-2002, 09:53 AM:
 

Granddaughter Hannah on my birthday.


 


Posted by Matthew Bailey (Member # 601) on 08-12-2002, 10:36 AM:
 
No,but two of my great grandmothers were Native American.
 
Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 08-12-2002, 10:37 AM:
 



 


Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-12-2002, 10:55 AM:
 
Gerard: Interesting format being driven by that intermittent! How many teeth on that spocket?

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion
 


Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-12-2002, 11:18 AM:
 
Let's try my business card photo:

(One of the few times I wore a suit to work ).


------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion


 


Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 08-12-2002, 01:55 PM:
 
Now why am I not suprised that Kodak biz cards have photos
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-12-2002, 02:32 PM:
 
Actually, most professional photography stores/studios offer photo business cards. And Kodak sells inkjet supplies specifically designed to make photo business cards at home:
Business Cards 1
Business Cards 2

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion


 


Posted by Tony Ratcliff (Member # 1196) on 08-12-2002, 02:32 PM:
 
If this works, it will be a picture of what was the the joy of my life for a few years (before I met my wife, of course) - the Dixie Gardens Drive-In Theatre and Ice Bowl that used to be in Ft. Wright, KY.


 
Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 08-12-2002, 05:40 PM:
 
If this works, you should see two very deranged people.


 


Posted by Daniel Boisson (Member # 1027) on 08-12-2002, 07:05 PM:
 
just after the deer attacked my car.....

nice job Brad, I'm gonna email my pic finally.


 


Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 08-12-2002, 07:38 PM:
 
John,
You asked "Gerard: Interesting format being driven by that intermittent! How many teeth on that spocket? "

I copied it from Antonio's website http://www.PROIEZIONISTI.COM
so I think it's a Florentine buzz saw!

I maka da long shot.
I maka da medium shot.
I maka da close-up.

Ready when you are, C.B.!


 


Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 08-12-2002, 08:43 PM:
 
Hillary, if that's who I think it is, he was just in town here last month to perform a marriage for a theatre promotions manager I know. With said ceremony taking place in a local old movie palace. Followed by a screening of "The Smallest Show on Earth"




 


Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 08-12-2002, 08:54 PM:
 
Steve,

That sounds like Waters. He's an ordained minister in God knows what religion. On the set of CRY-BABY, he performed Traci Lords marriage to a crew member (I think a relative of JW, but not sure).
 


Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-12-2002, 10:42 PM:
 
Yo Steve, What booth is that?
Mark
 
Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 08-13-2002, 01:13 AM:
 
Gerard:
I don't think that's C.B. (DeMille), it looks like D.W. (Griffith)

Steve:
You call that a projection angle? Bah!


 


Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 08-13-2002, 04:59 AM:
 
William, that one is what I call a "Lens Lofter".


 


Posted by Paul Cassidy (Member # 951) on 08-13-2002, 05:11 AM:
 
WOW !!! the screen must be lying on the floor
 
Posted by Bernard Tonks (Member # 809) on 08-13-2002, 05:54 AM:
 

Prince Of Wales Theatre, in Londons West End. I was on loan there for four weeks from my base cinema in 1958. Mainly a variety theatre, no films had been shown for 12 years, the last being an RKO Radio Pictures season. Large box, with 4 Stelmer spotlights and a slide lantern. Houselights, stage lights, curtains could only be operated by the stage crew.


 


Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-13-2002, 06:52 AM:
 
At those projection angles, you must have cropped half of the image, and vertical lines almost met at the top of the screen due to keystone distortion.

Did any of those installations use custom lenses/mounts to partially correct the geometric distortion?

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion


 


Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 08-13-2002, 07:26 AM:
 
Mark: That's the Gateway in Chicago, now the site of the Copernicus (Polish cultural) Center and used only occasionally for film.

Hillary: I think it was one of those ordinations you get by mail from the ad in the backs of comic books.
 


Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-13-2002, 04:31 PM:
 
Here is an interesting place I went to over the weekend. Its Called Doughnut Falls...for obvious reasons. Ya have to climb up the falls, it stair steps up, about 200 feet to get to it, or climb down a cliff about 75 feet. Fortunately there is not much algae growing on the rocks as I elected to go up the falls. Nice climb on a hot day!
Taken with a 6X9 View Camera and Schneider Super Angulon 65mm lens..Ektachrome 100SW film(how bout that John P....)
Mark

[IMG] http://www.film-tech.com/ubb/image_uploads//DoughnutFallsfull.jpg [/IMG]


 


Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-13-2002, 05:06 PM:
 
The speed of my internet connection according to www.dlsreports.com


 


Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-13-2002, 05:31 PM:
 
Well, I'm jealous now. On a good day, I might get 700kb/s downstream and 300kb/s upstream on my DSL connection. It sure isn't anything like a full T1 or T3 line.
 
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 08-13-2002, 08:25 PM:
 
William: how do you keep from cracking the reflector at that angle?!


 


Posted by Sam Hunter (Member # 1119) on 08-13-2002, 11:00 PM:
 
My turn........
A boy and his dog.........

Picture too large per the rules - removed by moderator.

Sorry about that,
Thought I had it reduced in size when I changed the file size and sent the wrong file instead.
mesa numbscull  -
 
Posted by Sam Hunter (Member # 1119) on 08-13-2002, 11:09 PM:
 
Joe,
did you use a some kind of screen capture type thing to post your Link Speed chart?
I was gonna be a copy cat.


 


Posted by Sam Hunter (Member # 1119) on 08-13-2002, 11:23 PM:
 
Let me try this again......


 


Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-13-2002, 11:42 PM:
 
On Windows, press "print screen", then open Paint and select EDIT/PASTE. I don't know how people do it with a Mac.
 
Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 08-14-2002, 12:33 AM:
 
Paul Cassidy wrote:
quote:
WOW !!! the screen must be lying on the floor

Okay, I'm a little embarassed now because the picture has been photoshopped. It was flipped vertically before uploading. The installation actually looks like this:

The projectors are angled upwards. It is from the Star-Lite DriveInn Motel & Movies in Summerdale, Alabama. In the 70s, after the 2nd hurricane in one year destroyed another booth, the owner got fed up & excavated a bunker for the projectors. They are bolted to the ceiling (you can see in the larger photo) because even though the booth is now out of the wind & debris path, heavy, frequent rain is a given in the area & flooding of the booth occurs. There is a wheeled library ladder in the booth that is used for threading up.

John Pytlak wrote:

quote:
At those projection angles, you must have cropped half of the image, and vertical lines almost met at the top of the screen due to keystone distortion.

It's not that bad, strangely enough. Running 35-PA & checking 1:1.85, it looks like less than 2 feet come in at the sides. Keystone isn't really noticeable at 1:1.85 probably due to perceptual ajustments made because of viewing angle. On a credit roll, though, it gives it away. There are no 1:1.37 lenses, & I sort of shudder to think.

quote:
Did any of those installations use custom lenses/mounts to partially correct the geometric distortion?

I'm really interested in that topic! What equipment & modifications have been applied at what installations to reduce keystone?

Tim Reed asked:

quote:
how do you keep from cracking the reflector at that angle?!

I'm resuscitating this one, but it had seen regular service with those lamps. The reflector on #1 was cracked, but not #2. I found that #1 is missing its reflector blower, #2 is not. Apparently, the reflector blower really does what it's supposed to do.



 


Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-14-2002, 02:10 AM:
 
On a Mac it's much easier than "Print Screen" on Windows which gives you no signal that the screen has been captured until you paste it into an editing program, and even that doesn't always work! On a Mac just press Shift+Command+3 to capture the entire screen into a file that will appear as "Picture 1" in the root directory of your Hard Drive, or Shift+Command+4 to capture a selected area of the screen. When the capture takes place, you will HEAR it, and you'll know that it was successful. The image can now be imported and messed with in ANY graphics program on da Mac!



 


Posted by Paul Cassidy (Member # 951) on 08-14-2002, 03:26 AM:
 
William that is much better , as you would have been able to bring a Blanket and lay on the floor

------------------
A KIWI eats,roots & Leaves.
 


Posted by Sam Hunter (Member # 1119) on 08-14-2002, 07:10 AM:
 
Thanks Joe,
I haven't used the print Screen key since my DOS days.

 
Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 08-14-2002, 07:50 AM:
 
quote:
Prince Of Wales Theatre, in Londons West End. I was on loan there for four weeks from my base cinema in 1958. Mainly a variety theatre, no films had been shown for 12 years, the last being an RKO Radio Pictures season. Large box, with 4 Stelmer spotlights and a slide lantern. Houselights, stage lights, curtains could only be operated by the stage crew.

Bernard, H+C arcs, with rotating positives, aren't they? Obviously an old style Kalee badge on the top box, but what model are the machines?

The Astoria Finsbury Park, which became a music venue called the Rainbow, now a church of some sort had a very steep projection angle. The sister theatre at Brixton, now another music venue, the Academy, was almost level, the projection box being under the circle. I was told that they wanted to do the same at Finsbury Park, but that the licencing authority wouldn't permit it there.

The Brixton Astoria has a famous proc. arch, based on a bridge, the Rialto, I think, It is possible to walk across this, but, if you do, take care; it is dark, and there is an R.S.J. painted black half way along, at just the right height to bash the top of your head on!


 


Posted by Bernard Tonks (Member # 809) on 08-14-2002, 10:05 AM:
 
Stephen,

Regret that yesterday I didn’t have time to finish the posting, wife shouting upstairs, ‘turn that b****y computer off I’m waiting to go out’.

I have never worked on the H+C arcs. You see, when ABC leased the Prince Of Wales Theatre to unable a West End run of an Associated British Pictures, “Wonderful Things”, because nobody else would book it! ABC decided much to all the six (three per shift) temporary projectionists disappointment, the Kalee 11 projectors would be temporarily replaced with Ross GC3 projectors, and the H+C arcs with Peerlees Magnarcs. The existing RCA sound with 1041 soundheads was used. As the theatre had never been on films since the academy ratio days, a temporary wide screen frame masked to 1.75 was also installed. As there was no scope, the picture was made as big as possible, and what a fantastic picture it was in spite of the huge rake! And the best RCA sound I’ve ever heard. Wonderful theatre to see a film in, and what an atmostphere believe you me. The supporting programme was a Pathe Pictorial, Harold Baim short, Peter Sellers featurette, Pathe News. No Adverts or Trailers of course, there was a sales interval before the feature. The presentation was, as you would expect in a West End cinema at that time. The stage crew were excellent, tabs & various colours were used on every item, the cues from a red light from the box. Very long throw, from the projection box the picture looked as though it was on the floor. I did, as all the others, very much enjoy working there. On the early shift before opening we would sneak into the Odeon & Gaumont staff canteen which was housed in the old Leicester Square Theatre, for a three course lunch for 1/9d in the old money. Happy days!!!

In later years Indian films were shown on Sundays, the H+C arcs were replaced with Peerless Magnarcs, and the Kalee 11s with Westar 2001 projectors, and not long after with Philips FP 20s. I didn’t do anymore projection, but I did see all the equipment changes. All projection equipment has since been removed completely. The box is now solely used for sound, lighting, and spotlights.
__________________________

Follows is a very poor quality photo of the steep projection rake at the Carlton Theatre, Haymarket 1969.


 


Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 08-14-2002, 12:35 PM:
 
I have a ton of pictures, but don't we all! These are good ones to test with...

Just so there is no confusion:

What are The Beatles doing with those dolls and sausages?!?!


=TMP=
 


Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 08-15-2002, 02:59 AM:
 
New installation woes:
Subcontractor error discovered when time for screen hang.



 


Posted by Paul Cassidy (Member # 951) on 08-15-2002, 08:02 AM:
 
America's Cup Racing in Auckland Home of the America's Cup.




 


Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-15-2002, 08:04 AM:
 
To William Hooper: Sort of sad that so many modern theatre designs try to recall the "glory days" of old theatres in the lobby, but dispense with the classic features (artwork, proscenium arch, curtains) in the auditoriums.

Looks like the lobby of the AMC Empire 25 on 42nd Street in NYC.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion


 


Posted by Matthew Bailey (Member # 601) on 08-15-2002, 10:56 AM:
 
I'll try uploading an image here that I tried to post yesterday.

 
Posted by Matthew Bailey (Member # 601) on 08-15-2002, 11:00 AM:
 

 
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 08-15-2002, 11:00 AM:
 
William, is that the old Empire Theatre which is now the lobby of AMC's 25 screener in NYC?

 
Posted by Matthew Bailey (Member # 601) on 08-15-2002, 11:06 AM:
 

 
Posted by Matthew Bailey (Member # 601) on 08-15-2002, 11:17 AM:
 
Until I can get the my Film-tech parody version of the above image to show,here's a description of the parody image.
Dollar amounts would be instead the amount of film in feet.
The other prizes would be instead the Film-Tech prizes.
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-15-2002, 11:29 AM:
 
"Press Your Luck" with Brad is an apt description of these multiple postings.


 


Posted by Matthew Bailey (Member # 601) on 08-15-2002, 02:42 PM:
 
Totally redid & renamed the pic. Have to check & see if it works this time.
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-15-2002, 02:48 PM:
 
Matthew, if this was a real game of press your luck, you would be losing.

Last time here...EDIT your posts, do not keep replying.
 


Posted by Matthew Bailey (Member # 601) on 08-15-2002, 03:06 PM:
 
OH,no,not again! I used Windows paint to blank out some of the board screens & used text with the same program to relabel them. I'm sure the file is JPG & correctly uploaded & entered everything.
Argh! Not my fault it's not working like it should on that image.
I guess I've had enough of this. Delete all non-working images & have it displyed on my MSN groups page as an alternative (at least that will make Brad happy)
 
Posted by Matthew Bailey (Member # 601) on 08-15-2002, 03:28 PM:
 
Ok,this is the last time I reply in this post for the rest of the day. At least I finally solved the problem in an alternative mannner here's my solution if an image I upload here does not show. http://groups.msn.com/TVOpeningClosingLogos Go to there, & scroll to where it reads New Photos, & it will be at the top. Thanks to Tech TV host Leo Laporte for the suggestion.
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 08-16-2002, 12:16 AM:
 
I don't know what sort of trouble you're having with your uploads but why you consistantly refuse to edit your existing posts instead of posting again and again is beyond me.
 
Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 08-16-2002, 01:33 AM:
 
Yes, that's the lobby of the AMC Empire 25 on 42nd Street in NYC. Originally the Eltinge Theatre, named for & partially owned by Julian Eltinge, a very famous theatrical female impersonator. Then it was the Empire Theatre, which became a burlesque house & was the theater in which Abbott & Costello first performed together.

Several years ago, a big deal was made about the theater being "saved", as it was moved with giant inflatable A&C figures seeming to pull it. When it was indicated that it would be incorporated into the AMC, it was generally sort of thought that it would be incorporated into an auditorium - I figured that they'd close off the balcony & underbalcony, & make the orchestra with the proscenium the big auditorium. The way it turned out was not what most were expecting.

There's a bit in Titus Andronicus where Titus' sons have been arrested, & a guy comes up & says that the emperor will spare their heads if Titus will give up his hand. Titus cuts it off & says "Here ya go!", & a little bit later a guy delivers his sons heads & says "Here ya go!" Titus probably thought the deal for saving his sons heads was, like the deal to save the Empire, supposed to be a little different.

John Pytlak has picked up on something that I've noticed too. It sort of becomes more unpleasant when so much recoqnizable reminder remains of a more sumptuous theatrical environment remains. The use of the Eltinge/Empire as the lobby of the AMC 25 probably satisfied who-knows-what-all regulations & historic requirements (they sure didn't need that much lobby) & the effect is initially spectacular in the contrast & incongruity of the escalators running through the proscenium, but after the initial visual impact, you start thinking about what you're looking at, & it becomes sort of depressing. You pass through this indicator of a gone, palatial theatrical experience into one which is contemporary, fairly featureless & unintending to impress.

When so much is still there to easily see what it was, it's sort of grisly & has an unpleasant feeling, like something immoral has been done. It's like a head on a pole. The Michigan in Detroit is another example:

Before: http://www.atos.org/Pages/Palaces/Michigan/Michigan.html

After: http://detroityes.com/downtown/michtheat_pan.htm

Everybody ooh's & ah's over the old proscenium theaters, & they're the most likely to be saved, but the postwar movie theaters are almost all gone. Auditorium decoration had been moving to more simplified schemes since art deco started coming in, then when sound came in & drapes, horsehair-stuffed mats & carpeted panels on the walls became more essential & worked into the design. You can see it especially in the Cinerama & D-150 theaters that are pictured all over the web - just drapes all around the walls. Those theaters were more severe, extreme & "undecorative" extensions of current auditorium schemes. The standard theaters at the time had decoration based on similar needed treatments for the walls, & usually out-of-the-catalog fixtures. But really the difference which made them work better than current generic stadium theaters were that they were closer descendants from an art deco tradition that was carried through auditorium decoration schemes - a scheme that relied greatly on line, much more than ornaments & fixtures. You can't get any sort of line going for a decoration scheme in short stadium shapes.


 


Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 08-16-2002, 01:57 AM:
 
Installation woes:
Customer says he can get screen cheaper & will provide on site, it is from an AV company that was sure he must have meant "inches", not "feet"



 


Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-16-2002, 09:33 AM:
 
Ugh. What a horrible place to watch a movie!
 
Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 08-16-2002, 10:29 AM:
 
William -- That pic of the theater in Detroit almost made me cry. People just don't care about quality or the experience anymore. They just want the product as quickly as possible. Hence "Digital Cable." My friend has this monstrosity and I literally can't watch TV at his house because it's like looking at a low-res AVI file with pixellation up the wazoo. "But you get 130+ channels!"

That second pic with the tiny screen reminded me of a film festival I was recently at at the State Theater in St. Petersburg, FL. While not exactly an impressive movie "palace", this single screener had some character to it. Unfortunately, there is no longer a booth, a screen, sound, or even chairs in it anymore, since they use it for punk and heavy metal concerts mostly, and the concession stand has been changed into a bar. Even the murals on the wall were covered with dirty drapes. So how did they run a film festival in this place? Easy. Folding charis, a sagging sheet as a screen, speakers from the stage, and glorious video projection!! (all the movies were on video anyway). I took what pictures I could, but I can't get my scanner working at the moment. It was a shame.

=TMP=
 


Posted by Greg Pauley (Member # 503) on 08-16-2002, 12:53 PM:
 

Keith Albee Theatre, Huntington,WV.



 


Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 08-16-2002, 04:51 PM:
 
What I learned in my attempts to upload pictures to a post (I finally succeeded the third try) is:

1. It is possible to post the picture more than once in the same post
by clicking on PASTE more than once, provided this is done before submitting the file location address. Good for making borders, or for special uses only. And you can post other pictures at the same time by uploading their codes.
2. Once the picture has beeen added and viewed, it IS possible to delete it by clicking on the tab EDIT, and deleting the file name.
3. It IS NOT possible to reattempt to upload a picture in a post where one has been deleted. This accounts for my using more than one post space without success on the second page of this thread, and I suspect Matthew may have experienced the same problem.
4. There is a very conveniently placed link to the "Smilies" chart
at the bottom of the thread page, next to POST REPLY. I never noticed it before this week!
5. Many thanks to Brad for creating, maintaining and constantly improving this most valuable free website for us all! And bless those who may have assisted him in this labor of love!
Gerard
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-16-2002, 05:39 PM:
 
Once the picture is uploaded, it is there for all time. You can recall it at any point by using the same coding in another post. If you delete the line of code in your post, you have not actually deleted the file. Only I can do that.
 
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 08-16-2002, 09:28 PM:
 
Here are pictures that go with my "stories" in the Catharsis thread. These are photos of photos (my scanner is broken).

This shows the 2 identical "Q-System" signal processors that recorded the nuke info on 35mm film. You can see the film recorder & 500' magazines on the right. The operator could look through a viewing port and see the CRT and digital matrix image being recorded on film. That's not me tripping over the 'scope probe though.

This is the darkroom where I broke my toe sleeping on the job. That's a LabMaster 35mm film processor. The b/w photo above was developed and printed using the equipment & chemicals in this darkroom.

This is the control panel of "Old Sparky", the 50KW diesel generator that went blooey (not my fault).


 


Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 08-16-2002, 10:12 PM:
 
I don't like theatres that have the audience higher than the screen. I don't think you should ever look down at a movie screen...especially when so many (American) camera angles are upward-looking.
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-16-2002, 11:38 PM:
 
I agree Manny. That's why in general I dislike stadium seating auditoriums. Of course I also have found that in general the acoustics of a stadium house leaves a bit to be desired as well, but looking downward puts me to sleep.
 
Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 08-17-2002, 08:57 AM:
 
quote:
I don't like theatres that have the audience higher than the screen. I don't think you should ever look down at a movie screen...especially when so many (American) camera angles are upward-looking.

All right young man, if you don't want to sit in the balcony with the rest of the family, you can just watch the REST of the movie from the orchestra pit! Don't think we're going to let you sit in the orchestra seating or god forbid the loge with the rest of your hoodlum friends; we know what happens there!


 


Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 08-17-2002, 07:22 PM:
 
Looking up at a screen that's installed too high is worse.
 
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-17-2002, 07:37 PM:
 
From a "human engineering" standpoint, it is most comforatable to have a screen about at eye level. You may have been accustomed to looking up at screens but that is not how the body is made. There are limits to how high a screen can be before it becomes uncomfortable (pain).

Steve

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"
 


Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 08-18-2002, 12:36 PM:
 
Brad--- I noticed that too. If I sit too high in the Stadium portion, i'm falling asleep halfway through the film because of looking down. (and I NEVER fall asleep during movies ) That's why when I'm with a group who insists on sitting in the top row, I usually separate from them.

OTOH, I did experience "pain" watching a sneak preview of Robin Williams' "Jack". The only seats left were in the front row, which was no more than 5 feet from the screen in their largest theater. I had to watch it in 10 minute intervals because my neck and eyelids hurt.

I guess anything "X-Treme" isn't good.
=TMP=
 


Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 08-26-2002, 11:28 PM:
 
My Turn



 


Posted by Arthur Allen (Member # 969) on 08-30-2002, 09:37 PM:
 
I followed the directions, I took out the spaces, and changed nothing else. The image was under 100k, and was 164 by 171, so it wasn't too wide.

[I'm deleteing the broken image link per the instructions to remove broken image links.]


 


Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-27-2002, 12:06 AM:
 
 -
Look closely because that's a mast, not a frameline for this is twelve-perf horizontal 35mm.
 
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 11-27-2002, 03:01 AM:
 
That's neato! Why are the frame lines on the perfs?
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-27-2002, 06:58 AM:
 
I've never seen that. What format is that?
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-27-2002, 07:22 AM:
 
The format was called "7012" and was intended as a shooting format for 70mm release, the brainchild of an outfit called Imagination FX back in 1989. Don Fergus and Jim Martin were the contact names.

I never noticed the alignment of the framelines with the perfs--obviously that's how their movement aligned with their aperture but why I cannot say. Maybe that's why this never caught on--no way to cut it!
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-27-2002, 07:25 AM:
 
Standard 8mm film cuts through the frame line.
 
Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 11-27-2002, 10:28 AM:
 
quote:
I've never seen that. What format is that?
Arnoldscope came to mind, but that's 10-perf 35mm, not 12.? The original post was 35mm, not 70. Hmmm... So this format was a way of shooting which was copied to 70mm afterwards?

The camera aperture would be just shy of 2.25 inches in width and would be 0.981 in height (since no soundtrack was there). That gives an aspect ratio of about 2.29:1 .
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-27-2002, 11:15 AM:
 
It would have been optically printed to 70mm (65mm intermediate perhaps) with a copy ratio very close to 1:1, perhaps even a slight reduction depending if one is simply covering the projectable area or putting excess image under the inner mag stripes. The advantage would have been the ability to use any 35mm film stock and process anywhere. I don't have any information on the camera and whether (one would hope!) it could handle 2000' loads otherwise the 3.7 minutes you'd get with 1000' would be a problem. And I can't see such a movement as being capable of very high speeds.
 
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 11-27-2002, 02:43 PM:
 
Some IMAX 15/65 cameras have adjustable frame rates, probably up to 48 or 60 fps or more. In order to get a 3D camera under the space shuttle's weight and size constraints, IMAX designed a 3D camera that used one strip of 65mm film with the left and right eye images alternating (as in LRLRLRLRLR) with a 30-perf pull across at 24 fps. The alternating images were separated in the post-production process.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-27-2002, 06:24 PM:
 
I've got old issues of American Cinematographer and Millimeter magazine that have little blurbs about the 12-perf 35mm format. I think it is a shame it hasn't caught on. Perhaps there's too much negativity against VistaVision still?

Very obvious advantages for 12/35. It has a slightly larger negative area than 5/70. And any motion picture film lab can handle it.
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-27-2002, 06:55 PM:
 
Some cameras that pull alot of perfs do it in two steps instead of one. This allows for a more compact movement, and smaller, and easier to make cams for the pull down claws and reg pins. Imax originally did their pull down in two steps although some of the later cameras do it in one step. Unlike a projector it only has to go through once so any strain the film and perfs is getting is only a one time deal.
Mark @ CLACO
 
Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 11-27-2002, 08:57 PM:
 
OK, I gotta ask something here...

What is going on with pictures here? EVERY picture posted to Film-Tech since about 2 weeks ago come up on my end displaying a blurry closeup of Joe's face and a warning about 'Illegal Pictures' under it. From what I have been able to gather others are not seeing what I am. Can someone tell me whats up with this?!?

-Aaron
 
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 11-27-2002, 09:19 PM:
 
Aaron, I'll email you about it.
 
Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 12-29-2002, 07:17 PM:
 
Is the upload feature still available?

Seems to have vanished.
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-29-2002, 07:19 PM:
 
Look to your left. Now look closer. A little bit closer. Yes, that's it, right there. A scroll bar. (The Opera browser does not suffer from this on low resolution screens.) [Wink]

I think I'll flip flop the "forums" button with the "upload" button. That'll force people to find it. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 12-29-2002, 07:35 PM:
 
quote:
Paul Cassidy wrote:

quote:

Okay, I'm a little embarassed now because the picture has been photoshopped. It was flipped vertically before uploading. The installation actually looks like this:

 -


The projectors are angled upwards.

I don't understand. The projector is upside down. So wouldn't the projected image be upside down?

EDIT: No you have to be kidding. Look at the location of the exhaust tubing!
 
Posted by Dave Macaulay (Member # 813) on 12-30-2002, 11:00 PM:
 
quote:
Imax originally did their pull down in two steps although some of the later cameras do it in one step. Unlike a projector it only has to go through once so any strain the film and perfs is getting is only a one time deal.
Mark: I've never seen an Imax camera that does multiple pulldowns per frame except for some animation/process cameras that did 3 5-perf pulldowns for each frame. I think a special camera with multiple pulldowns was made for the Chronos time-lapse photography (not by Imax) but can't say for sure.
The older cameras I saw a lot of (which as far as I know were the original type used for Tiger Child) use a Mitchell style movement with the claw engaging 3 perfs per side and pull down 15 perfs.
They numbered the cameras sequentially when I was there, cameras #1 to 5 or 6 were identical movements and the high speed camera (60fps or thereabouts?) worked the same with some fancy metalwork in the claw arm. A later design equipped with a beryllium (!) claw could hit 100fps+ but sounds like a psychotic lawnmower with no muffler while doing so, and the engineers tended to be fairly distant if someone tried it with the case open.
(although very stiff and light, beryllium is a highly toxic metal. Its dust and vapour are extremely unhealthy to breath or contact. Beryllium is the only material specifically forbidden in the Formula 1 engine rules)
The perfs used for pulldown are not badly stressed at 24fps but show visible damage at high speeds. A loop will last quite a while at 24 but explodes into confetti in very little time at 100fps.
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-30-2002, 11:20 PM:
 
David,
You may be right on that being the Chronos camera. I do remember that it can't even make 24fps although I believe they tried to get it there. The pull down in that camera is by toothed chain. So its possible that because they have the time between exposures for a loooong pull down, that they would do it in multiple stages. I do remember that I read someplace several years ago that the very first 15 perf Imax camera did pull down one complete frame in two strokes. Its not unreal to run a movement at that speed, since the film only sees one pass. There could also be some advantages to doing that large of a pull down in two strokes.
Mark
 
Posted by John Hegel (Member # 628) on 12-31-2002, 01:15 AM:
 
Anyone else have fish in their theater?

 -

 -

These were at the former Mills Theater.
 
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 12-31-2002, 04:02 AM:
 
About a year and a half ago, someone from the camera department (Colin Gardiner?) at Imax showed me how to load the 2D cameras. There were three models in the building and all three used 15-perf pulldowns. I wasn't paying enough attention to the guts to notice anything else like how many perfs were clawed. I was amazed that the film was able to run through the mechanism with all of the twisty-turns it had to make, particularly the model with the separate feed and takeup magazines. Unfortunately, all of the 3D cameras were out on rental at the time.
 
Posted by Dave Macaulay (Member # 813) on 12-31-2002, 08:46 AM:
 
This has certainly strayed from any relevance to forum pictures...

I can't imagine a system of running a multiple pulldown camera that isn't a mechanical nightmare - or all electronic. The Imax cameras (except the double strip 3D camera which uses synchronized motors similar to a Kinoton E projector) have a bunch of sprockets & toothed belts, how would one arrange the movement to pause - ie pulldown twice and then wait during exposure? Constant running would give a very short exposure window and stopping/starting the pulldown cams would cause a vibration nightmare. With animation, time lapse, or process cameras there's lots of time to do pulldowns and the machinery is stopped during exposure.

The 3D 2-strip camera isn't too bad to thread. The whole front opens up and the film paths through the gates is then accesible. The feed paths are complex though! I can't remember the number of sprockets and twists but it's a few. I think any camera operator with 35mm experience could figure out a 2D Imax camera. I doubt if anyone could get the 3D one working without specific training.

And I have a new digital camera and maybe I'll upload a new forum picture someday soon.
 
Posted by Bill Langfield (Member # 818) on 01-01-2003, 08:58 AM:
 
Dave said...
quote:
This has certainly strayed from any relevance to forum pictures...
But then Dave then went on with stuff about 3D cameras, Imax etc. and then did not post a picture.

So I'll try and give this picture thing a go with some very POOR pix!!
I'll buy a real camera one day, promise. But 1.0 , 1.5 , 2.0, 5.0 mega pixels where do you decide what is too little and too much and strike a balance at the price.

 -
Me!

 -
Me with a beer, no never.

 -
My Cat !!

 -
My car! Its a Ford Laser KF 96 hatch

 -
My House. Just Me and Mum live here.

 -
One of the dodgy projectors I have to work with.

 -
2 x 5 tier Cinemecannica CNR 35
With Milk crates to reach top plate

So there you go!

Bill
 
Posted by Matthew Peters (Member # 1495) on 01-01-2003, 08:09 PM:
 
 -
You can never have enough PTR’s [Wink]
 
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 01-01-2003, 08:19 PM:
 
The original Jacobson camera used for Tiger Child and parts of North of Superior used a scissor type movement that pulled 7.5 perfs per stroke
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-01-2003, 08:21 PM:
 
Geez, one media cleaner would do the job of 100 PTRs in a row.
 
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 01-01-2003, 09:05 PM:
 
Apparently, one can never have too many (mostly empty) 70mm film cans.

 -
 
Posted by Dave Macaulay (Member # 813) on 01-01-2003, 10:19 PM:
 
Bill Shaw says it's 2 x 7.5 perfs: (and I believe him)

http://www.in70mm.com/newsletter/1998/54/jan_story/jacobsen_story.htm

but I've seen and threaded a number of the original style cameras and I just can't remember them doing 2 pulldowns a frame, something I can't imagine missing. Obviously I never threaded the remains of camera 1... did the design change to a 15 perf pulldown or has my memory failed me (yet again)?
 
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 01-01-2003, 10:36 PM:
 
Is the pause between the 2 pull downs per frame enough see or even feel -- or would you only know by looking at the innards of the mechanism?
 
Posted by Bill Langfield (Member # 818) on 01-02-2003, 09:52 AM:
 
Guys, SERIOUSLY I thought this thread was for uploading dumb pictures
of ugly mugs (heads of people) and other stuff. NOT discussing stuff.

So here are couple more pictures to scare you...

 -
This was My Favourate Cinema 4 'plex' (1984-1991)
Im the the Dude in the Blue shirt, not the fat guy (training)
He gave up and became a train driver, even fatter now

 -
I have no idea what I'm doing there with 6000's
Oh, Yes I do, we used to do CHANGE OVERS in '85
So I guess I must be rewinding.

BILL
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-02-2003, 11:11 PM:
 
Dave,
It may well have been the ole Jacobson camera that I read about. I remember reading a article about him a few years back, just don't remember where I read it......wish I could find it though. It wasn't the article written by Bill Shaw.
He was quite the prolific camera engineer!! So many unique cameras from one guy....geez!
Mark @ CLACO
 
Posted by Matthew Peters (Member # 1495) on 01-02-2003, 11:39 PM:
 
 -

A Platter with only two decks - half the space twice the fun [Big Grin]

(Speco LP 270)
This Cinema has played 5 different films today
 
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 01-02-2003, 11:41 PM:
 
Ushio makes rectifiers?
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-03-2003, 05:35 AM:
 
Yea, They're also gearless, and converting to digital soon! (Ushio owns Christie) [Smile]
MArk @ CLACO
 
Posted by Bill Langfield (Member # 818) on 01-03-2003, 06:17 AM:
 
OK, I give up.
No picture this time.
Batteries too low in the camera, just nothing but weird colors.
Just keep those fun pics coming, I love it.

Bill.
 
Posted by Matthew Peters (Member # 1495) on 01-03-2003, 08:53 AM:
 
 -

[ 04-25-2003, 05:25 AM: Message edited by: Matthew Peters ]
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-03-2003, 11:13 AM:
 
 -
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-03-2003, 04:22 PM:
 
Software DVD players that let you take frame grabs are cool. [Cool]

 -

They allow you to make funny Photoshopped anecdotes and true-isms.
 
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 01-03-2003, 07:21 PM:
 
Xebex makes lamphouses Sanrex makes rectifiers and they are all part of Ushio which also owns christie
 
Posted by Sam Hunter (Member # 1119) on 01-03-2003, 10:34 PM:
 
Hey Joe, calm yourself. [Razz]
 -
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-03-2003, 11:49 PM:
 
40 stories of adventure in 70mm six-track Dolby Stereo.

 -
 
Posted by Nate Lehrke (Member # 1460) on 01-04-2003, 12:10 AM:
 
I wonder if this will work
 
Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 01-04-2003, 12:24 AM:
 
Nate,

Obviously not... [Razz] [Razz]
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-04-2003, 01:58 PM:
 
Meanwhile in Las Vegas, someone let his gambling debts get just a little too far out of control...

 -
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-04-2003, 02:42 PM:
 
Everybody loves that guy!
 
Posted by Jeff Skallan (Member # 891) on 01-05-2003, 03:57 PM:
 
Here's an older one. Simple, yet effective!
 -
 
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 01-05-2003, 04:28 PM:
 
What? Yous gotta problem wit our collection methods? [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 01-05-2003, 04:37 PM:
 
JEFF,

Is it true that in Colorado Joe R. is known by his friends and family as " My Dog Skip?"
 
Posted by Jeff Skallan (Member # 891) on 01-05-2003, 10:20 PM:
 
Bob,

I guess the word is really getting out! I've also been told from various women on the street that Joe's all time favorite movie is Glitter. [Eek!] Joe really needs to get out more!
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-05-2003, 11:25 PM:
 
Maybe Joe just wants to torture some small rodents with Mariah Carey's high pitched squeals. Hey, I might do that if I had any pet rats. Mariah's breast implants are kind of cool. [eyes]
 
Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 01-06-2003, 12:04 AM:
 
Anyone spot anything wrong with this thread up or with this machine in general?

 -

And can anyone tell me anything about this rewind set-up? All I know is that it came out of a sister theatre that closed some years agao and I thought it'd be a good novelty backup to have just in case .

 -
 
Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 01-06-2003, 12:12 AM:
 
What happens when the boss gets loose?
 -

And yes this is, of course, a real Mandril. It is, in fact, the same Mandril that was in Ace Ventura back in '97?

 -

In case there are disbelievers amongst us!
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-06-2003, 02:35 AM:
 
They're implants? Awwww man....
 
Posted by Jeff Skallan (Member # 891) on 01-06-2003, 02:59 AM:
 
Jason,

In the photo above it looks as though the pad roller clearance through the Cat 700 reader is set with too much tension. Did I guess right? Do I win some kind of prize?
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-06-2003, 03:09 AM:
 
Well it looks to me like the M35GP is a pretty messed up machine. Not only are the pad rollers set to 1.5 layers of film tension as to a bit over two like Jeff noted, but the film is threaded out of frame and does not feature the proper DTS timecode for the discs that are in the machine. Also, the film is scope yet you are using a flat lens.

These are almost exactly like the machines that used to be in the old UA corporate screening room that I ran a few times back in the day.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-06-2003, 03:32 AM:
 
OK how about a comic strip I drew at the theater probably 7 or 8 years ago:

 -

 -

 -

 -
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-06-2003, 03:32 AM:
 
 -

 -

 -

 -
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-06-2003, 03:33 AM:
 
 -

 -

 -

 -
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-06-2003, 03:34 AM:
 
 -

 -

The End!
 
Posted by Jeff Skallan (Member # 891) on 01-06-2003, 03:48 AM:
 
I DEMAND A REMATCH!!! [thumbsdown] [thumbsdown]
 
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 01-06-2003, 08:03 AM:
 
That rewind is a TECO
 
Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 01-06-2003, 09:09 AM:
 
The DTS timecode reader should be underneath the Dolby Digital reader.
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-06-2003, 09:27 AM:
 
I think the SRD penthouse tension is what he was referring to. Dts tracks fine and dandy on top of a SRD reader.

Can't really judge loop sizes, as we don't know where in the pulldown the machine was when the picture was taken.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-06-2003, 12:23 PM:
 
 -
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-06-2003, 05:36 PM:
 
The first photo of that mandrill (back on page 14) is truly frightening. I wouldn't be holding hands with a beast bearing fangs that gigantic. [Eek!]

I've also seen monkeys do really perverted things in zoos. That mandrill looks like he could bench press about 400 pounds. The monkey could probably rip your arm out of the socket and beat you with it. Which leads to the question, has any lobby personnel been chased down, mauled and raped by a mandrill? Hehe, "hey folks, the show's not in the theater! It's right here in the lobby!" [beer]
 
Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 01-06-2003, 08:27 PM:
 
SRD drum tension was the only thing I could detect when I looked at the pic. Loop size was something I wondered about from others standpoint. I have taught my guys to thread the projector using exactly the shown loop size.

The Mandril scared the [bs] out of me! His name is Davey and HE was the one in charge, no doubt! He was cool tho. He ate two 130oz bags of popcorn and drank about 1/2 large cup of Coke, maybe Diet.... LOL.. He had a waist size of 32" the last time I ran into him. Also, as is inherent to his breed, his fangs were loosening and breaking out. Must have been the Coke... That damn thing sat and watched the movie, along with Arthur the Lion (pics to follow), some Siberian Tigers and Bubbles (The elephant). Sadly, Bubbles had to spend her day in the trailer as we felt she might break our marble flooring in our lobby area.

Maybe I'll get the other pics posted tonight when I get home. I don't think I have them on this pc...
 
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 01-06-2003, 09:01 PM:
 
I realize that some theaters are a three-ring circus, but what the heck is going on in South Carolina?
 
Posted by Luciano Brigite (Member # 1104) on 01-06-2003, 09:06 PM:
 
Allright. .after seeing all the other members uploading pictures here
I decided to give it a try.. so here it goes..
It's a picture of one of my GK 12 before I started de-assembling,stripping painting off, repainting and putting things back toguether .. eeeeekk.. I've been working on this projector for quite a few months already and still don't have it done.. ok.. I got rather lazy in the past months after getting fired due to theatre closing down.
soo... here's the picute:

 -
 
Posted by Chris Markiewicz (Member # 1415) on 01-07-2003, 09:35 PM:
 
Let's see, Here's where I work: Kahilu Theatre, Kamuela, Hawaii
 -
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-07-2003, 09:43 PM:
 
Brad said "I think the SRD penthouse tension is what he was referring to. Dts tracks fine and dandy on top of a SRD reader."

Actually pends on a number of things....like what platter system is in use, how far to the next guidance roller, evenness of ptojector speed, and several other minor things.......Fortunately, the projector shown is digital, so it is exact.

But, from my experience, the DTS reader will track 100% reliably if mounted under the 701, or SDDS, to take advantage of the 701's, or other penthouses smoothing out action of the film.
Mark @ CLACO
 
Posted by Chris Markiewicz (Member # 1415) on 01-07-2003, 09:49 PM:
 
...and the auditorium.
 -
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 01-08-2003, 10:25 PM:
 
 -
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-09-2003, 12:49 AM:
 
Steve, what the hell is that? One of Skeletor's weapons? [Eek!]
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-09-2003, 12:52 AM:
 
Looking at Steve's post, it looks as if he is presenting something. And his forum picture makes him look like he expects you to know what it is and that he is very proud of it. Hilarious!
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-09-2003, 12:58 AM:
 
I still say it is one of Skeletor's weapons!
 
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 01-09-2003, 01:00 AM:
 
Looks like a six track head to me.
 
Posted by Dan Lyons (Member # 1454) on 01-09-2003, 02:23 AM:
 
Something familiar. But, this is from 1927 , Richardson's Bluebook Vol 1!!!!  -
 
Posted by Dan Lyons (Member # 1454) on 01-09-2003, 02:34 AM:
 
One more. Here is my Pro35, all clean and shiny. It should be coming into the house this week and getting the outer casing put back on.
 -
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-09-2003, 07:52 AM:
 
Dan Lyons wrote and posted a picture of film shipping practices in 1927: "Something familiar. But, this is from 1927 , Richardson's Bluebook Vol 1!!!! "

So poor shipping practices haven't changed in 75 years. [Frown] So let's CHANGE them! [thumbsup]
 
Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 01-09-2003, 09:10 AM:
 
As I stated earlier, there were other animals in a Promo we did...

 -

and...

 -

I also have picstures of my supervisor I sitting behind Arthur (The Lion) with our hands laid out on him....

I'll have to pull those out of the frame and scan 'em..

I work at a wild place I tell ya.. [Smile]

And working with a bunch of animlas (myself included) isn't always easy... LOL [Big Grin] [Eek!] [eyes]
 
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 01-09-2003, 02:09 PM:
 
Looks like a head off a reeve's cinerama dubber
 
Posted by Sam Hunter (Member # 1119) on 01-09-2003, 02:12 PM:
 
Hey Dan,
Is your shutters bent? [Wink]
 
Posted by Dan Lyons (Member # 1454) on 01-10-2003, 01:34 AM:
 
Nope, in the Pro35, the shutter is at an angle, and has curved blades. Can't tell you why, just is. [Wink]

Danny
 
Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 01-10-2003, 08:53 AM:
 
That type of shutter is called a conical type and is bent so as to get the shutter blade as close to the film plane to increase the light output of the projector...same shutter design as in a Simplex XL, Photophone, Cinemeccanica V-8 and other machines.
 
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 01-10-2003, 09:53 AM:
 
The optical sound pick-up looks very far away from the aperture. What is the part with the lever just below the shutter for?
 
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 01-10-2003, 10:00 AM:
 
The optical sound drum is no further from the aperature than any other setup... it just looks far because of the way the film goes straight down to the sound drum after the last projector head sprocket.
 
Posted by Joe Beres (Member # 678) on 01-10-2003, 02:01 PM:
 
Michael Schaffer asked:
quote:
What is the part with the lever just below the shutter for?
That is the framing adjustment ever.
 
Posted by German Marin (Member # 918) on 01-10-2003, 02:35 PM:
 
4000 Watt and 500 Watt...
 -
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 01-11-2003, 12:51 AM:
 
A small but needed correction.
 -
 
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 01-11-2003, 01:35 AM:
 
Do you think the refrigerators (left under big spot lights) on this sucker would be big enough for Barry's ice machine?

 -
 
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-11-2003, 08:08 AM:
 
Not buying into the "SR" part of the Cat. 222SR/A? Maybe truth in advertising should be Cat. 222 double-S/A

Steve
 
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 01-11-2003, 10:20 AM:
 
We all know why the SR had to be put in quotation marks [Smile]
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 01-11-2003, 10:21 AM:
 
I considered "Double S"! Or just "Pseudo SR." Also a disclaimer next to the patent notice "For use only as a backup to digital..." or "Steve Guttag says..."

BTW, is Wootton Bassett a place, a person, what?
 
Posted by Bernard Tonks (Member # 809) on 01-11-2003, 10:52 AM:
 
Wootton Bassett is in Wiltshire, South West of England.
 
Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 01-11-2003, 11:28 AM:
 
I'm assuming by the remarks that the CAT 222 didn't really produce true SR? Sorry, I don't get all of the "technical" jokes right away [Razz]

=TMP=
 
Posted by Bill Langfield (Member # 818) on 01-11-2003, 12:05 PM:
 
CINEMECANNICA PAYOUT, ANOTHER broken POT shaft.

I know my pics suck, I promise to get a better camera, but Xmas maxed
me out, then I couldn't help myself and bought a 'Digital Terrestial Receiver' or STB. Not as impressive I thought I would be. Gezz even have to wait for FOX to ugrade before Digital works on cable.

The STB is the thing with the green LEDS above the radio.
(Don't why I am talking about the STB, maybe I like it more than I think I do)

 -

ANYWAY, back to the point..!!
We are out of IDLE rollers on the platter until 'store' opens up again. (Towards end af January, even so we are not allowed to spend - but this is a must - so four have be odered) At the moment ONE plate is running with a flat spotted roller. Someone who should know better payed out on this plate, and the movie Treasure Planet was thrown, (due to the plate vibrating like crazy)and wrapped around the payout. In her rush to untangle the mess, YET another POT was snapped off.

I must admit she was paying out of the top of this 5-Tier, kind of hard to see up that high I guess, but thats what we have milk crates for.
 -

 -

I know it's hard to see the POT in the pics, but Im thinking could it not be possible for a Jeweller or Watch maker to solder/Braze/ or drill and pin the arm back on??
Thats got to be cheaper than paying $600 for a new pot.

 -

Has anyone tried to repair these POTS? I have three dead ones now,
which adds up to around $1500 to replace! Ouch.

Makes me not worried rushing in emergencies with Speco payouts, all your looking at is $30 for a busted payout arm.

Bill.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-11-2003, 04:34 PM:
 
 -
 
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 01-12-2003, 12:34 AM:
 
Joe drags out a CDS reader for us to enjoy
 
Posted by Jean-Michel Grin (Member # 1360) on 01-12-2003, 02:52 AM:
 
[IMG]
 - [/IMG]
Ok this is the main Booth at the rialto, Geneva, Who I'm working.
 
Posted by Jean-Michel Grin (Member # 1360) on 01-12-2003, 03:52 AM:
 
[IMG]
 - [/IMG]
Ok, I tried with Internet Explorer and the picture in Gif Format.
This pic is a shot from booth 3 & 4 at the Galeries du cinema in Lausanne. The patrons pass trought these booth to acces the auditoriums. And kids are amazed to see how a projector running, for luck the exterior light don't disturb the projection.
 
Posted by Jeff Skallan (Member # 891) on 01-12-2003, 04:08 AM:
 
Crazy! I really don't think I could handle people looking at me all day like I was some kind of caged zoo gorilla. What do you do when a show goes down? Hide in the corner? [Eek!]
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-12-2003, 05:51 AM:
 
Jean, if you're going to post more than 1 or 2 pictures from the theater, please send them in as a formal submission to the picture warehouse. [Smile]
 
Posted by Jean-Michel Grin (Member # 1360) on 01-12-2003, 09:15 AM:
 
Brad,
These ultimates test was just for checking witch programm Netscape or I.E. should be used and witch picture format .jpeg or .gif work better. No intention was mine to consume bandwith. I you're interested i got a lot of pictures from various locations in Geneva and Lausanne where I'm working as projectionist an tech. Of course I'll be proud to sumiting these pics for the warehouse. Thanks for your understanding.

Jeff,
Don't worry about these "gorilla cages" When the film is threaded the projectionist go to a another booth, closed to the wiew of the peoples. [Big Grin]
Bye
 
Posted by Mike Baer (Member # 1519) on 01-12-2003, 09:53 AM:
 
Jean-Michel

you have a 5-deck platter in every booth?
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-12-2003, 10:21 AM:
 
Bill said.....
"Has anyone tried to repair these POTS? I have three dead ones now,
which adds up to around $1500 to replace! Ouch."
__________________________________________________________________

Good lord, are these pots solid gold or something? Can we see a pic of one of the pots....? I couldn't tell from the pics where the pot was at.......perhaps we could cross refrence it to another manufacturers pot. If they do cost that much from Shakemeccannicca then thats sure a VERY GOOD reason not to buy Shakemeccannicca products!
Mark @ CLACO
 
Posted by Jean-Michel Grin (Member # 1360) on 01-12-2003, 10:56 AM:
 
Mike,

In almost every booth we use 5-deck Platers. Only in a old multiplex in geneva we use old CNR platters they just have 3 deck, And one of our booth at the Rialto in geneva use Strong 3-deck platers but I will soon exchange them by a 5-deck platters.

For me it's munch better to fit every booth with 5-deck platters: for example one deck with the cartoon for the kids, the second deck for an another movie dubbed in french, the thrird platter for the english version, the fourth platter for take-up and the last platter for a Premiere or in case of faillure of one another, ore more better to cut and serve a pizza to yours collegues [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Jean-Michel Grin (Member # 1360) on 01-12-2003, 10:59 AM:
 
Bill,

Theses POTS seems to me like CNR - Cinemeccanica payout head.
 
Posted by Mike Baer (Member # 1519) on 01-12-2003, 11:12 AM:
 
Jean-Michel

when i go to geneva i will visit your cinema/booth.
And make a visit to the pathe balexert.

Greetings Mike
 
Posted by Jean-Michel Grin (Member # 1360) on 01-12-2003, 03:10 PM:
 
Ok Mike,

Send me an E-mail and I could talk to my chief.

I don't have entry at pathe balexert (owned by Gaumont-Pathe) but i can call one of guy that I know here.

Bye [Smile]
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-12-2003, 08:39 PM:
 
"ore more better to cut and serve a pizza to yours collegues"
________________________________________________________________

Jean-Michale, I really like your ideas concerning serving food with the spare deck, I'll catch the next plane over! BTW, What exactly does Swiss Pizza Taste like? How does it compare to say the Pizza in Chicago?
Mark @ CLACO
 
Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 01-12-2003, 09:31 PM:
 
I remember seeing Pizza Hut in Switzerland [Roll Eyes] I only go to Pizza Crud on a buffet day when I am in a rush and the urge to take more lipitor pills overcome me. The food at Movenpik ( like an upscale Denny's ) in Geneva was better [thumbsup]
 
Posted by Jean-Michel Grin (Member # 1360) on 01-13-2003, 06:24 AM:
 
Mark, Richard,

I'm joking when I said to serve meals on a Spare platter [Smile] for me clealiness is the most important thing to keep a better projection.
For the taste of pizza, I don't have any ideas how are the pizzas in Chicago. But if you have the intention to take business or vacation trip to Geneva, Don't eat at Pizza Hut: Theirs Pizzas have a lot of fat and cheese. Some peoples like it and another dislike it. I know very good place to eat a tasty Pizza in Geneva and Lausanne, made by "reals" Italian guys with fresh ingredients. For example a great pizza cost $13.00. That's truth Switzerland Is expensive, but the difference of price justify the tase between a real pizza an a mas-productet fast-food pizza...

Bye,

Jean-Michel
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 01-13-2003, 07:25 AM:
 
Less talk; more pictures.

 -

This box holds two 6-track heads, including the one posted previously. That would be very interesting if they were the original contents of the box given the mailing date (early 6-track) but elsewhere on the container it says 3-track with the 3 changed to a 6 so no way to be sure of anything except the remarkable continuity of P-B postage meters, unchanged since 1956.
 
Posted by Bill Langfield (Member # 818) on 01-13-2003, 11:43 AM:
 
Jean-Michel, Mark...

(Yes, the POT costs a lot, I'll get more details on it specs for you, Mark)

Yes, Jean-Michel the payout is a Cinemiccanica CNR-35-3/5 unit.

My main question about it, is that the POT/payout-arm can be snapped off so easy. To replace the pot it's around $500.

Yet the payout arm on a Speco cost $20 due to all the electronics
living in the plater arm NOT the payout unit.

I've been through this before, There is no cheap way out, I was just hoping there was a way to re-attach the payout arm to the pot.

Here are the AMPS from my FAV place (sorry my dumb camera has cut off a few the amps)
 -

This one has Dolby Digital / DTS 35 / DTS 70 / Mag 35 / Mag 70.
With QSC amps and Panalogic with Todd Ao and Dolby

Here is the projector head, I was going to ask how is the best way to by-pass the DTS and go straight to Dolby Digital. But the Pic IS BAD.
 -

Oh my, I will get a new camera and re-submit the pics.
This is BAD sorry

Bill.
 
Posted by Jean-Michel Grin (Member # 1360) on 01-13-2003, 01:56 PM:
 
Bill,

I'm surprised that a POT cost a lot like this, and thats a fact, theses part a very fragile. But i have an idea. You told me that a POT cost $500. Maybe is a special part, One time I dismounted on of theses Payout head, there was two POT inside the same enclosure, conected in serial. Maybe you could find a multi-turn POT at your local Radio-Shak store ant mount it on the payout head with a metal part (sorry I don't know the real term in English)
Good Luck !
 
Posted by Bill Langfield (Member # 818) on 01-16-2003, 11:46 AM:
 
Jean-Michel,

Thanks for the e-mail on the Cinemaccina pots, that was nice of you.

The pay-out has been put in for repairs with a quote of $250.
Since I paid $500 twice for just the pot, this will be interesting.

There is NO way there is two pots in there, and I can tell you for SURE that Radio Shack will NOT have the pots!!!

I'll get some better pictures of the payout.

Will get a new camera soon, the d-cam sux, V-cam sux, Kodak is cool but they are like $500-$1200

Thanx

Bill.
 
Posted by Jean-Michel Grin (Member # 1360) on 01-17-2003, 03:50 AM:
 
Ok Bill,

Maybe I'll be wrong, but several years ago I dismounted one of theses POTS an I discovered a multiturn cermet POT (like the pot on a Dolby card) mounted at the bottom of the main POT.
Efectively these POT are expensive even in Europa, saled a assembly for Euros 316.- = $ 350.- I mean that is too expensive..

good Luck, and sorry for my bad English...

Jean-Michel
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 01-20-2003, 10:06 PM:
 
Less talk - more pictures
 -

The old Plitt Screening Room in Chicago up on the 7th floor of the Chicago Theater, once a vaudville rehearsal space known as "The Little Chicago." Photo taken 1998.
 
Posted by Jon Miller (Member # 163) on 01-21-2003, 07:24 PM:
 
 -

Early 1960s Kalart-Victor 1600 carbon-arc 16mm projector.

 -

No mirror, no reflector lens, no fun. [Frown]
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-21-2003, 07:57 PM:
 
Steve, Looks like a typical PLitt booth of the 70's/80's!! Pretty crappy and one major thing is wrong with that projector....you can actually see into the gear side of the projector. Its was probably THE only one on the entire chain that is clean.....
Mark
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-21-2003, 10:22 PM:
 
Steve--is the second motor a selsyn unit for 3D? And aren't those Enarcs a bit beefy for a screening-room-size screen? We get about 18-20fl with a similar model on a 25-foot screen (8mm positive and 7mm negative at 60 amps).
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 01-22-2003, 12:06 AM:
 
I don't know if it was for 3D or to drive a dubber. That facility was in use until the early 80's when Plitt headquarters moved a block away just before they sold out to Cineplex. I never saw it in use so I don't know about the brightness. AFAIK it's all still sitting there.

That Kalart-Victor arc projector perhaps explains the underlying reason for the peculiar K-V two plane threading: Clearing an external light source without (for whatever reason) having a lower takeup.
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 01-22-2003, 12:08 AM:
 
And now something for the What Were They Thinking Department:

 -

Good thing Magna-Tech included a torque reversal switch so one can conveniently select mag down or mag up (as shown). [Embarrassed]
 
Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 01-22-2003, 02:28 AM:
 
quote:
The old Plitt Screening Room in Chicago up on the 7th floor of the Chicago Theater, once a vaudville rehearsal space known as "The Little Chicago."
You'll see "The Little Chicago" mentioned in Balaban & Katz's ads from the 20's (the Chicago was a B&K house.) It wasn't really a vaudeville rehearsal space, but a rehearsal space for the brief stage shows which accompanied early silent shows at the B&K movie theaters (like many other silent era palaces did). The "Little Chicago" ads usually just show corporate types screening movies there. It really was a sort of "staging area" for the stage shows & film presentations before they moved them out into the house.

Sam Katz got swept up by Adolph Zukor to operated Publix, Paramount's theatre arm. (Publix was Paramount, the movie studio's, theatre company, but the Publix theaters were named Paramount. Go figure.) Paramount (Publix) was getting very monopolistic with its business practices in the theater end, & it's techniques varied across time. First they just bought & built theaters, then when the heat started building they got coy & bought large stock interests in regional chains (like B&K, Saenger, etc.) & used the leverage to help those chains monopolize local exhibition (while showing Paramount product, of course!) By 1929 Paramount sort of tore off the mask & swallowed all the regionals that it could into Publix by buying them outright. Loew's (affiliated with MGM) for the most part was making it so they didn't have to be so coy. Then the market crashed & Paramount, which had just leveraged all these theater buyouts, found itself in a crack.

What's with that projector angle? It looks like the projector is aimed about 30 degrees to port from straight on at the, umm, port.
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 01-22-2003, 09:41 AM:
 
It's a defunct booth, out of service a dozen or more years when I visited it. Perhaps they had to shove the machine over to remove some other gear.
 
Posted by Bill Langfield (Member # 818) on 01-22-2003, 01:53 PM:
 
What the heck is a Screening room?

I can only assume it's a small cinema set up for only about 30-40 people in total comfort. OR for the booker/boss to preview a film and decide if he's going to book it in.

H**ts have something like that at F*x Studio's called 'Directors Suite' that is very nice. HOWEVER when it goes to 'scope, it uses the old (new) trick of top/bottom masking. Oh dear. No wonder some directors avoid c/s these days. (At least 1.85:1 doesn't transfer too badly to 16:9 w/s TV's.)

Bill.
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 01-22-2003, 04:26 PM:
 
Common height projection ought to be the rule. I don't fault the tech guys for spec'ing 1.85 screens when that yields the largest practical picture. The blame can be laid at the feet of the architects who design a room too narrow to accomodate a Scope width screen at maximum height.
 
Posted by Mike Baer (Member # 1519) on 01-25-2003, 11:19 AM:
 
Here some pics of my "secret chambers" upstairs  -

 -

and the outside

 -

[ 01-25-2003, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: Mike Baer ]
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 01-25-2003, 04:57 PM:
 
Hmm...no comments on the great Magna-Tech mag-up conundrum? [Confused]
 
Posted by Jean-Michel Grin (Member # 1360) on 01-25-2003, 04:59 PM:
 
Hi Mike,

Nice place here [Smile] How many screens do you have in this multiplex ? and where is the location ? I'll be glad to see a movie there !

Bye,

Jean-Michel
 
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 01-25-2003, 07:39 PM:
 
If my memory serves steve they were designed to feed off the top of the roll only I used to have an MTM like that and I ended up remounting the reels hiherup on a sub 19" panel
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-25-2003, 07:57 PM:
 
Maybe I'm just stupid, but I don't see the problem with the dubber design. Would someone care to explain?

(Wouldn't the oxide side of the mag film always be down, in order to be in direct contact with the heads?)
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 01-25-2003, 08:15 PM:
 
Mag Up = roll wound with oxide out
Mag Down = roll wound with oxide in

KEM flatbeds, as built, want it mag down, although plate reversal switches are so commonly added that the maker started looping the wind motor wiring past the lip of the machine for convenience in adding them. Then they can take the rolls either way. Assistant editors syncing dailies on a bench using a squawk box and a head clipped to the synchronizer work mag up. Thus, on any given show dailies can be mag up or mag down. (Workprint temp mixes are almost always mag down.)

I've been doing dailies lately on a show working mag up but they're making a point of giving them to me mag down (well, except for one roll they slipped me today [Eek!] ) and I return them mag up.

Scott, the problem the photos illustrate is that with anything other than a very small roll trying to run mag up (with the mag film coming off the bottom of the reel) results in the film rubbing on the back of the left sprocket pad (that's actually the 16mm side--they flip around).

Gordon, that's basically what they are: Mag down only. Except the curious fact that there is still a switch there which can select CW or CCW backtension/rewind direction for either mode.

A strategically placed roller just above the sprocket would solve this issue. And if that was a picture-safe roller it would enable the dubber to act as an extra winder/rewinder (the mag rollers would scratch picture film) which could be a convenience in some situations.
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-25-2003, 09:51 PM:
 
Anyone with more than 2 pictures to show of a theater needs to send them in as a formal submission to the Picture Warehouse. They are not to be uploaded here.

This thread is intended to be used as a place for members to upload a sample picture (this means one) to make sure they understand how the system works. Once you have successfully accomplished this task, please do not continue to upload random pictures to this thread or show off a theater. All future uploads that should be sent in as a picture warehouse submission will be deleted.

A picture for discussion (like Steve's of the dubber above) belongs in it's own thread.
 
Posted by Chris Markiewicz (Member # 1415) on 01-25-2003, 09:52 PM:
 
Here are some pics of the place I work:

Pictures deleted by moderator. See above post.

Whoops. Trust me not to read to the bottom of the upload page [Big Grin]

[ 01-26-2003, 04:05 PM: Message edited by: Chris Markiewicz ]
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 01-25-2003, 11:45 PM:
 
In that case can we start a thread for random pictures?
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-26-2003, 03:00 AM:
 
If the picture is interesting enough to upload, then certainly it deserves it's own thread, right? [Wink]
 
Posted by Mike Baer (Member # 1519) on 01-26-2003, 08:13 AM:
 
Hi Jean-Michel

we have 8 Screens and if you would come to see a movie,just let me know and i show you the booth too.In #3 is the best place to see a movie in scope.

a bientot Mike

When i have enough pictures of my cinema, i of course will upload them on the picture warehouse.
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 01-26-2003, 10:21 AM:
 
Brad: Not necessarily. This has been one of my favorite threads because you never know what sort of interesting pictures will pop up here...then a few comments back and forth...and then on to something else. Like I would not have started a thread about (horizontal) MTE dubbers because I know it's simply how they are built. It's silly and others might find it amusing. Thus, perfect for this thread. Squelch it if you feel you must.
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-26-2003, 11:36 AM:
 
Ok, good point and taken. Continue to post random pics if desired, but the policy will remain that if you want to post more than 2 pictures of your theater it MUST be sent in as a formal Picture Warehouse submission.
 
Posted by Bill Langfield (Member # 818) on 01-26-2003, 01:49 PM:
 
I was worried for a second there Steve. I'm glad you finally talked Brad across to the random pix. I agree with how this was going, and is now going to keep going. Thanks Brad.

Gezz, I even posted pictures of my car, house, lame projector without knowing it was 1 picture only test.

The reason I did that was because, I liked the other pictures, and heck it gives others something to LOOK at, rather than endless text. (I'm just glad I didn't get 'yelled' at for the crap quailtity of my pics!)

I would have thought Brad, you could select 'worthy' pics from here and move/copy them into the warehouse, rather than have it fill up with junk?

quote:
if you want to post more than 2 pictures of your theater it MUST be sent in as a formal Picture Warehouse submission.
Interesting, that no has got in trouble for that. All three companys I work for would go off their nut if sent internal pictures of their cinemas. I don't really know why this is.

Bill.
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 01-26-2003, 02:02 PM:
 
There, there Bill. The only lame projector is one with a video input!

All three companies I work for would go off their nut if sent internal pictures of their cinemas.

Ah, but maybe you can submit them for posting in the warehouse without attribution.
 
Posted by Bill Langfield (Member # 818) on 01-27-2003, 01:03 PM:
 
Steve,

Those projectors with video connections scare me.

Wed Jan 29th we are running a surf festival, on video.
(Last year I could not get the A/V on Panastereo going,
this year, I'll be..well NOT there and all phones turned off!)

Sun Feb 9th ILM are going to run the latest HD video projection system for a few studios with Q&A between running parts of Star Wars 2 on video then on film (to compare I guess)

When Star Wars 2 first was coming out there was talk that we would be screening it in video, perhaps this is to show we should have. I really don't know. I just turn off when it comes to video projection in cinemas.

This stuff scares me.

Film= Bio/mgr = Bill has job
Video=mgr = manager hits PLAY = Bill has NO job

I know its not as simple as that, but it still scares me.

Bill.

Will post more about the ILM thing. I should have got the full details in the first place. I've decided I'll go along and see how it all works.

Got any questions I can hit these FOX/ILM people with to screw them up?? Write me up a list of MEGA PIXELS, LUMINACE, FOCUS, screen size, that sort of stuff. Anything.

Remember I know NOTHING about video projection.

Bill.
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-27-2003, 02:20 PM:
 
The Kodak website has a nice overview of Digital Cinema technology:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/digital/system.shtml

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/researchDevelopment/techProdHighlights.shtml
 
Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 01-27-2003, 05:29 PM:
 
That problem Steve K showed in the dubber picture also happens even if the dubber is set up in a full-sized rack. I don't know why some production houses insist on winding it that way.. I got a print in with big stickers insisting it had to be wound back that way.
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 01-27-2003, 07:35 PM:
 
John, mag up primarily stems from the way you'd run mag over a sync block with a mag head and squawk box. Not sure about upright Moviolas anymore.

Bill: Taunting the video people is worthy of its own thread so I'll start one in Film Handlers.
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 02-05-2003, 01:10 PM:
 
CP-100, right?
.
 -
.
Nope! [Cool]
.
 -
 
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 02-05-2003, 01:17 PM:
 
Nope not a CP100 any more but a 6 channel Nr frame Dolby built a 16 channel version with usually a blue door
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 02-05-2003, 03:29 PM:
 
Yeah I used to work at a recording & mixing facility that had one or more of those...at the time packed with Cat.22's. I think if I jammed 16 Cat.280's into one box I'd want to add a fan!
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-05-2003, 06:29 PM:
 
Cool VCRs!
 -
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 02-05-2003, 08:20 PM:
 
Drop those doors down and let's see what yer packin'.
 
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 02-05-2003, 09:36 PM:
 
Looks like a older Filmtech screening room picture
 
Posted by Jonathan Worthing (Member # 803) on 02-17-2003, 04:57 AM:
 
Find the dog. Hard to see, but he is in there

 -
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 02-20-2003, 09:27 AM:
 
What happens to your JJ when you sell it to a theatre

 -

Another local venue last year did the same thing to the 70mm teeth on one of theirs.

Be afraid; be very afraid
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-20-2003, 09:54 AM:
 
[Eek!] [Roll Eyes] How did it happen?
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 02-20-2003, 12:04 PM:
 
In the pictured instance, the children running the booth didn't notice the intermittent shoe runner had come loose and was running on top of the sprocket teeth. The sprocket is of necessity a very lightweight alloy to keep the mass low. Once the hard coating is worn off it wears down quickly. This sprocket was still pulling film successfully when the problem was noticed and it was replaced.

In the 70mm incident (elsewhere) the operator changing gauges neglected to insert the shoe component fully into the machine. He/she also didn't realize the importance of keeping the particular components (gate, trap, shoes) with their own machine which may or may not have been a factor but certainly prevented proper image alignment and focus. The sprocket failed during a show and a print was damaged.

Edit: Added a word for clarity.

[ 02-20-2003, 06:24 PM: Message edited by: Steve Kraus ]
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-20-2003, 12:12 PM:
 
I suspected as much. ESTAR base film is tough, but not THAT tough. [Wink] Did the shoes get damaged as well? Would suspect there was quite a bit of metal debris and noise if the "children" kept their eyes and ears open enough to notice. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 02-20-2003, 12:37 PM:
 
quote:
The sprocket is of necessity a very lightweight alloy to keep the mass low
I always thought that 35/70mm sprockets were made of alloy [read: non-ferric] materials because they cannot become magnetized and damage the 70mm mag tracks...

-Aaron
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-20-2003, 12:42 PM:
 
These sprockets needed to be BOTH low mass and non-magnetic, yet durable enough to run many millions of feet of film. And with competent projectionists, they did. [Cool]
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 02-20-2003, 01:05 PM:
 
I can't discount the non-ferrous idea entirely but note that the other sprockets on the machine are conventional hardened steel (AFAIK) as are intermittent and other sprockets on 35mm machines set up for 4-track magnetic so I tend to conclude the material is chosen primarily to reduce the mass that needs to be accelerated and deccelerated very quickly.
 
Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 02-20-2003, 01:18 PM:
 
Once I was sent to a Mann theatre in Monrovia, Ca. I was working
vacation for the regular operator. It was a six plex, two houses
had DP-70's. The kids ran the booth and I had to fix stuff around the theatre. On the DP70's I found that the 35/70 spocket
looked just like the picture [Eek!] above from Steve. I found that the kids, when they would clean the gate. They would knock loose the bands and the bands would slice into the teeth of the 35mm part of the spocket. I ordered two new spockets from Mann Theatres. But later I showed the kids how to clean that type of
projector. I came back a few months later and found one of the
spockets was starting to look like the picture again [Eek!] .
 
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 02-20-2003, 08:20 PM:
 
The intermittent motion of the intermittent sprocket may slightly magnetize a hardened steel sprocket (due to the starting and stopping in the same direction). The constant speed sprockets wouldn't magnetize themselves since they don't start and stop 'at all'.
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 02-20-2003, 08:27 PM:
 
Hmm...I'll have to cogitate on that one a bit. Right now the physics of what you're saying escape me.
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 02-22-2003, 03:11 AM:
 
 -

LOA ECN
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-22-2003, 04:04 PM:
 
Hmmmm... a faded negative of some ancient film shot on 65mm. I like how the frame was cut out with a pair of scissors.
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 02-22-2003, 04:52 PM:
 
So when can we expect to see this advertised as a "rare film cell" on Ebay? [puke]
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 02-22-2003, 05:11 PM:
 
Not bloody likely. Snips of original camera negative of LOA are not exactly common.
 
Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 02-22-2003, 08:14 PM:
 
Apropos Daryl's idea on magnetism,
quote:
The intermittent motion of the intermittent sprocket may slightly magnetize a hardened steel sprocket (due to the starting and stopping in the same direction). The constant speed sprockets wouldn't magnetize themselves since they don't start and stop 'at all'.

I remember as a kid reading about the earth's magnetic poles, and how hammering the end of a bar of steel while holding it N/S
would cause its molecules to align themselves magnetically. I tried it with a wagon axel and was able to witness a weak magnetic attraction of the axel to iron filings.
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 02-22-2003, 09:28 PM:
 
That comes from subjecting the material to a severe stress which kind of shakes up the magnetic domains and causes them to align with the earth's. It's doubtful that a sprocket starting and stopping would be a similar stress and even if it was, what way would the domains align since it's either in motion or stops in any of 4 positions? Try your hammering experiment with the metal in similar motion or reoriented positions. Hammering is actually a much better demagnetizer than magnetizer.
 
Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 02-22-2003, 09:36 PM:
 
Now HERE's a theatre that knows what's important in bringing in the masses! [Smile]

 -
 
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 02-22-2003, 09:55 PM:
 
I would think that a magnetized sprocket would form a circular field, such as that found in a speaker magnet.
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 02-22-2003, 11:06 PM:
 
I think a speaker magnet's field is pretty much the same as that of a bar magnet since the alignment is end to end. That the bar is of cylindrical cross section doesn't change things much. But that's neither here nor there since we are talking about a non magnetized sprocket possibly acquiring magnetization.
 
Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 02-28-2003, 03:36 PM:
 
The first time I visited Toon Town, I got lost...

 -
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-04-2003, 09:36 PM:
 
 -
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 03-05-2003, 01:42 PM:
 
Eh...who needs digital when there is glorious mag!

 -
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-05-2003, 06:29 PM:
 
Why is some text blurred out?
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 03-05-2003, 10:33 PM:
 
Because all of our screenings are considered the confidential business of the clients.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-05-2003, 10:38 PM:
 
But it looks like the text that was blurred out was printed on top of the pictre and not actually printed on the reels themselves.
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 03-05-2003, 11:01 PM:
 
I flipped segments in further obfuscation.
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-05-2003, 11:08 PM:
 
Quite frankly, I don't find any of this interesting at all. Been there, done all that already!
Lets move on to something constructive like Bomb Saddam: Save Iraq....
Mark
P.S. One can see that same LOA clip at American Wide Screen Museum......
http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/loa1a.htm

Steve's clip does not look to be in bad enough shape to be original and is slightly lower in contrast.....probably duplicate negative, but Martys At WSM does look bad anough and also has the Eastman Color labeling on the edge that would have been there on every foot of camera neg.
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 03-06-2003, 12:01 AM:
 
My piece is a snip of the same piece courtesy of Marty, furnished by RAH. Contrast is not going to match since it was photographed / scanned differently.
 
Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 03-11-2003, 01:47 AM:
 
They don't need glorious mag where they've got this:

 -

 -
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-11-2003, 01:55 AM:
 
You won't need ANY sound since no sound could overpower the constant coughing caused by all of the dust! [Smile]
 
Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 03-12-2003, 06:17 PM:
 
William: Where is this fine tube equipment?

Tubes are the best sound, IMHO.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-12-2003, 06:27 PM:
 
The 6L6GC and 12AX7 Groove Tubes in my Carvin stack make it "crunch" pretty damned good. [thumbsup]
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-12-2003, 08:45 PM:
 
What's up with this guy?
 -
 
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 03-12-2003, 08:49 PM:
 
I don't know, but it looks like a pretty good use of that yellow tape to me.
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-12-2003, 08:58 PM:
 
I agree he seems to have found a good use for the yellow tape, but I am a bit concerned that he is using a Neumade splicer as a dispenser. If that tape is too sticky, it could pull the splicer off of the table!
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 03-12-2003, 09:17 PM:
 
 -

Hmm...John couldn't afford a natural blonde? [Big Grin]

Edit to add: That's off a piece of film. I see it's available online as well.

[ 03-12-2003, 11:52 PM: Message edited by: Steve Kraus ]
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 03-12-2003, 10:39 PM:
 
Check out these nice, short carbon stubs!

 -
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 03-12-2003, 11:46 PM:
 
There there Scott; I'm sure you can find a nice girl anyway.
 
Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 03-13-2003, 01:01 AM:
 
Bruce: It's in Miississippi, a building not used for film for a long while.

Steve: The sign says "LAD". My guess is that it's not just the blond that's artificial.
 
Posted by William Leland III (Member # 1400) on 03-13-2003, 08:49 AM:
 
 -
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 03-13-2003, 09:33 AM:
 
Steve--the LAD girls (both of them) think short carbons are sexy! [Smile]
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-14-2003, 08:34 AM:
 
The Digital LAD (Laboratory Aim Density) is a tool supplied by Kodak to help quality control of digital recording onto film:

http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/support/dlad/index.shtml

Kodak engineer Ron Uhlig led the project (same guy that was the first to demonstrate stereo optical sound using Dolby noise reduction in the early 1970's).

If you find a Digital LAD image in the leader, it likely shows the use of digital intermediate output onto film.

Here is information about the original film LAD that I developed:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/h61/
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-14-2003, 09:11 AM:
 
Don't forget the video of John Pytlak winning a friggin' ACADEMY AWARD for development of the LAD system.

http://www.film-tech.com/trailers/filmtechpytlak.html
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 03-28-2003, 07:48 AM:
 
Mom's Meteorite

 -
 
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 03-28-2003, 12:27 PM:
 
Hope she didn't find it in her house like some people did. [Eek!]
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 03-30-2003, 11:36 PM:
 
No, it hit the driveway with sufficient impact to crack the concrete a bit, then bounced into the front lawn.
 
Posted by Matt Hale (Member # 1518) on 04-02-2003, 07:55 PM:
 
On a completely different topic, we present for your consideration pictures of the most putrid booth in the world:

 -

 -

presented as cautionary example of what happens when you dont patch the hole in your roof for 10 years. I do not enter this building without a respirator. [Eek!]
These were taken after the worst of it was cleaned up, but in the process the #1 projector got rolled down the booth stairs & thrown off the balcony...
 
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 04-02-2003, 09:21 PM:
 
That was an expensive roll down the stairs
even with corosion that package is worth good bucks
 
Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 04-02-2003, 10:30 PM:
 
[Eek!] What happened to that place?!?!

Are there any pics of the auditorium? [Smile]

=TMP=
 
Posted by Matt Hale (Member # 1518) on 04-03-2003, 12:59 AM:
 
Yes, I have pictures of the rest of the theatre, in various stages of decontamination. However, I did not want to go over the 2 picture limit. On the other hand, is this really a suitable candidate for the picture warehouse? If not, then maybe I can post more here if there is interest.

Basically this theatre was abandoned some time in the early 90s. Whether the roof started leaking before or after that I cant say, but when we found it everything was coated in mold & fungus. The first time I went in I caught a bad lung infection.

We are evaluating the feasablitly of restoring this to its former glory. Structurally the building is in good shape it just needs a new roof & interior. We havent decided whether to seek compensation for the destroyed projector.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-03-2003, 01:48 AM:
 
Matt, if you have more pictures then please submit them with captions via the official process to the warehouse. Submit these as well. If you have pictures from waaay before it got bad that would be cool, too. If you can get a picture of the front of the building for the first picture.

But yeah, this thread isn't for theater and/or booth tours.
 
Posted by Kris Brunton (Member # 432) on 04-03-2003, 08:27 AM:
 
Matt,

What theater was this/where??

Best of luck in the reno, look forward to seeing more pics.
 
Posted by Matt Hale (Member # 1518) on 04-03-2003, 12:59 PM:
 
I am not at liberty to dicuss the name/location of this theatre, yet, but I will put together what pictures I can and send them in.
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-05-2003, 04:45 PM:
 
Hmmmmm, eat or sleep?

 -
 
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 04-05-2003, 04:54 PM:
 
Brad that pussy looks like the one featured on the chat room right now [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 04-06-2003, 02:42 PM:
 
[Eek!] How cute! [Big Grin]

Is that your kitty, Brad? I want to get a cat, 'cept I'm allergic as hell. Only when they get older does it seem to bother me. Maybe if I didn't LET them get older.... hmmm..... [evil]

=TMP=
 
Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 04-06-2003, 02:51 PM:
 
 -
 
Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 04-06-2003, 06:07 PM:
 
Michael Brown, your new picture (the purplish one) looks just like a properly color-balanced one would look like on my Sony rear-projection TV right now! (See thread in the afterlife)! It's frightening!
 
Posted by Sean M. Grimes (Member # 445) on 04-06-2003, 07:16 PM:
 
 -

that is probably the worst looking makeup table I ever ever almost had to work with. Thankfully it is now shuttered. I was a relief operator there... a very occasional relief operator. This shot was not posed, it was taken right before it closed.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-06-2003, 08:57 PM:
 
The proper way to mark reel changes. You can never be too sure.
 -
 
Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 04-06-2003, 09:31 PM:
 
people who use shoe polish for anything but shoes well.....needs to work in a shoe store not a booth.
 
Posted by Jon Miller (Member # 163) on 04-06-2003, 09:46 PM:
 
While were at it, here's the proper way to splice those leaders on. One clear tape splice will just not suffice...
 -
[Big Grin]
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 04-13-2003, 03:22 PM:
 
Hint #1: Despite the Mr. Peanut outfit he was (and may well still be) The Most Trusted Man in America.

 -

Hint #2: That's a 65mm Super Panavision camera but it's loaded with B&W stock.

 -
 
Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 04-13-2003, 04:59 PM:
 
Looks like TRON to me.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-13-2003, 09:08 PM:
 
What is this new "Dsrd" sound format?
 -
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-13-2003, 09:09 PM:
 
Dolby SRD. Apparently written by someone who doesn't understand that "SRD = Dolby digital with SR noise reduction".
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-13-2003, 09:11 PM:
 
I smell a conspiracy!
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 04-13-2003, 10:09 PM:
 
"SRD = Dolby digital with SR noise reduction"

I'm having a heck of a time jamming the 6 Cat.280T's into my CP500D! [Razz]
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-16-2003, 01:09 AM:
 
 -
These are the things needed to make sure a reel gets there INTACT! If it does not come like this, then it should be thrown in the trash, then the theater should be set on fire and then a nuclear bomb should be launched towards the sun.
 
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 04-16-2003, 11:32 AM:
 
If it takes that much to hold 700' of film on a reel I'd hate to see a full one.

I thought the nuclear bomb was supposed to be launched towards TES.
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 04-16-2003, 01:39 PM:
 
Wait...how many billion feet of release prints do North American labs churn out each year? Film rollers atop phone poles connecting all US multiplexes with a dozen or so strands in parallel. The prints all start at the labs, wind their way across the countryside hopping from theatre to theatre, and then finally they all end up in Jeff Joseph's basement. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 04-16-2003, 02:00 PM:
 
Heck, Steve, if the unprocessed film can go from Rochester to Hollywood and Toronto that way, then hopefully we can eliminate lab splices every damn 6k.

--jhawk
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 04-16-2003, 08:26 PM:
 
I think that this is a job for Brad "Interlock God" Miller! [Smile]
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-16-2003, 11:09 PM:
 
I hope Kelmar has a few billion rollers for the task.
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-17-2003, 02:43 PM:
 
jhawk wrote:
quote:
Heck, Steve, if the unprocessed film can go from Rochester to Hollywood and Toronto that way, then hopefully we can eliminate lab splices every damn 6k.


Don't forget that the film is coated in wide rolls, that then have to be slit and perforated. So even the raw stock has a limit on how long it can be, even if it didn't need to be shipped in roll form:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/h1/sizesP.shtml#p

And how would you protect that festooned strip of raw stock from light and the weather? [Wink]
 
Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 04-17-2003, 03:18 PM:
 
John, I assume they would run inside a tube or pipe of some sort.

What's the limit on the length of rolls that Kodak can currently supply? Figure 39 in H1 (your URL) appears to suggest 3k feet, but I thought the labs got them on 6k rolls. [Confused]

--jhawk
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-17-2003, 04:52 PM:
 
Here's the Kodak catalog, listing available roll sizes and formats:

http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en/motion/catalog/colorPrint.pdf
 
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 04-17-2003, 06:16 PM:
 
I find that this modification to the UltraStereo MMP-10 improves low-end response:

 -
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 04-17-2003, 08:06 PM:
 
Manny,
Looking at that pic and judging by the size of the "basket", it appears that you are modeling that "gear" yourslf... [beer]

>>> Phil
 
Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 04-17-2003, 10:38 PM:
 
Uhoh, I see I'm going off topic. Just a little more...

Thanks for the link, John. Looks like 6k is indeed the maximum. What a shame, but perhaps in future decades.

I see that 2383 is available in BH1866; why would anyone want to do that? You can't use 2383 for internegatives, can you?

--jhawk
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-18-2003, 06:47 AM:
 
jhawk asked:

quote:
I see that 2383 is available in BH1866; why would anyone want to do that? You can't use 2383 for internegatives, can you?

Prints with BH-1866 perforations would be used for applications requiring pin registration, like background plates. Could also be used as leader to splice with polyester printing negatives.
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 04-20-2003, 10:26 PM:
 
If over/under 3D is coming back let's at least do it right.

 -

Everyone has a Cinerama 6-perf head available, right? [Smile]
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-21-2003, 03:00 AM:
 
Here is an ANALglyph version of one of the frames above. Use your red and blue 3D glasses to see it in 3D. 6 "perfs" combined into 3 of highly mediocre 3D is always refreshing.

 -
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 04-21-2003, 07:30 AM:
 
GMTA, Joe. I started working on the same thing in Photoshop but scrapped it when I couldn't find my analglyph glasses.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-22-2003, 12:36 AM:
 
I need to know what GMTA means. Right now. OK I can at least wait until you reply.

By the way, what the hell is that thing that he is handing out to the audience?
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 04-22-2003, 08:34 AM:
 
GMTA = Great Minds Think Alike

Not sure what he's holding but I think it's a coat hook thing and he's waving it into foreground space to demo the 3D (the individual hooks will be at varying distances).

Now, let us move swiftly onto another page so we don't have to look at Manny's underwear anymore.
 
Posted by Elvis Navas (Member # 1676) on 04-24-2003, 09:01 AM:
 
 -
She is the coordinator of concession stand.
"Don't touch my Vodka!!! or I'll kill you"
 
Posted by German Marin (Member # 918) on 04-24-2003, 09:12 AM:
 
 -
Left to right: César Dávila, Jhonny Cacique, Germán Marín, Elvis Navas and Giorgio Volpi.
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 04-24-2003, 03:51 PM:
 
So I just got this scanner that will scan 35mm slides, so I figured I'd test it out on these:

Downtown Boston, just after sunset a few weeks ago (sorry for the dust on the slide)

 -

A weird metal sculpture.

 -

And, finally, the obligatory shot of a decrepit projection booth--Simplex E7s, Peerless lamps, and Western Electric soundheads and mag penthouses. This booth hasn't run film since the '60s and probably never will again.

 -
 
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 04-25-2003, 04:04 PM:
 
What make of pedastal are those scott?
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 04-25-2003, 05:53 PM:
 
Gordon--I don't know. Maybe Western Electric? I'd never seen Western Electric soundheads like these, either...only the Universal Base-type soundheads (like at the Avon Cinema in Providence, RI).

Does anyone recognize those bases? And does anyone know if those motors are selsyns for two-strip 3D?

The theatre is a 1500-seat "neighborhood" theatre in the Boston area that was built in 1918, but was closed from some point in the 1960s until the late 1970s, when it was renovated and partially restored for used as a performing arts center. The only film that has run there recently was a 16mm show that I did for them last fall, using portable machines.
 
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 04-25-2003, 06:04 PM:
 
Do you have a shot of the operating side of the soundhead
If it was a selsyen there would still be the regular motor mounted as the selsyens are really only acting like a govenor on the 2 main motors
 
Posted by Bernard Tonks (Member # 809) on 04-25-2003, 07:06 PM:
 
Could be Western Elecric 'Mirrophonic' model soundheads, but the ones I worked on, and others I've seen in the UK had twin round belts for the drive.
 
Posted by German Marin (Member # 918) on 04-26-2003, 05:19 AM:
 
 -
El Avila among the north of Caracas. Picture took from the place we work (workship).
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-10-2003, 03:34 AM:
 
 -  -  -

Kind of scary, isn't it?
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-10-2003, 05:02 AM:
 
Wrong thread. You should post these in that one thread. You know, that one where people did this sort of thing... the one that compared Josh to the Statue of Liberty. Don't make me ban you! [Smile]
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 05-10-2003, 05:42 AM:
 
Joe: Which thread was that? And, was the comparison cuz of his "spiked" hair? Hmmmm...yes, there was a resemblance... [evil]

>>> Phil
 
Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 05-10-2003, 08:09 PM:
 
I used to be able to print forum pictures. But now when I try, the portrait photos on the left still print well, but the uploaded photos are replaced by an out-of-focus extreme facial closeup, and the text:

"ILLEGAL PICTURE!!!
The piece of shit who tried to post a picture here is
illegally STEALING bandwidth from another web server!"

This doesn't make sense. I get the same result when I download the page of posts to my hard drive, and then print it, or when I try to print a single picture from a post, or use COPY & PASTE.

Is this some hacker's prank? Or virus?
How can I get rid of it, and print posted pictures?
 
Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 05-10-2003, 08:28 PM:
 
No, its part of the program. Ive gotten that message before, too! Just right-click and SAVE PICTURE AS should do the trick (at least on my PC Windows 98SE, the most advanced OS in the known universe).
 
Posted by Robert Throop (Member # 61) on 05-11-2003, 12:17 AM:
 
Gord and Scott,
I believe the pedestal in Scott's picture was made by Chicago Cinema.
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-11-2003, 12:22 AM:
 
Gerard, you have a firewall, don't you? I'll bet anything it's Norton too! That's your problem. It is not allowing the HTTP_REFERER and thus you get the "angry Joe" pic.

Turn it off or allow film-tech.com on your approved list. If you still have problems, email.
 
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 05-11-2003, 01:39 AM:
 
Nah, he's using Internet Explorer. IE's print rendering engine re-requests all the documents (stupid, eh) but doesn't supply ANY environment variables to the server when it does it (even dumber). Use Opera if you want to print the whole page. Use the method Paul outlines if you only want the pics saved.
 
Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 05-11-2003, 04:32 PM:
 
Yes I'm using Windows 98 Second Ed, with McCafee firewall not running [disabled]; connecting through MSN ver 8.

I printed all of Sam Hunter's screening room pics & captions with one click, and mailed them to Robert Sprague, who is very grateful for anything he receives from Film-tech.

I printed whole forum threads similarly in the past, but when I try to print the Film Handler's Forum thread on Motor-Generators, the photos are replaced by that stupid punim & insulting text!

Right-clicking on a single photo and clicking "print" enables me to print an enlarged copy without the caption, but I want to print the whole thread with photos and texts.

Why does Film-tech still alow Joe's silly hacker joke to be part of its program code? Isn't the joke stale by now, and shouldn't it be deleted?
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-11-2003, 04:53 PM:
 
Gerard, you are completely missing the point here. It is NOT a joke. Porn sites were uploading their content here and sucking bandwidth which costs a lot of money. Something HAD to be done, and there's nothing better than a blurry pic of Joe with his "angry face" being displayed on porn sites rather than the actual porn that those webmasters were expecting to be displayed. It was not intended for YOU to see, but due to your system you are seeing it.

Perhaps down the road we can change that to read "your computer or firewall has issues. Go to X webpage to read about your options to fix it." or something along those lines. Right now it isn't a real high priority as there are only a very small handful of people who are seeing the website the way you are.
 
Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 05-11-2003, 05:01 PM:
 
Thanks for your patient explanation, Brad.
I'll try to print on a friend's rig when he gets back from vacation.
The funny thing is how I have no trouble with archived collections listed on the Film-tech home page, but only on present-day forum threads.
 
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 05-11-2003, 05:10 PM:
 
Images uploaded prior to November 11, 2002 are not 'affected' by the measures taken against the problem. New custom software was implemented on that date and images from then on are affected.

If it is possible to use a browser other than IE for MSN with your connection, download Opera and use it to print pictures... it doesn't suffer the same problems as IE's poorly implemented print rendering engine.
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-11-2003, 08:13 PM:
 
No, no, no, the main webpage of opera.com now only offers version 7, which is evil. Download the last good version 6.06 here or you can use this link. Both are for Windows.
 
Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 05-12-2003, 11:32 AM:
 
Brad:
Thanks for the Opera tip and links!

Daryl:
You wrote

quote:
Images uploaded prior to November 11, 2002 are not 'affected' by the measures taken against the problem. New custom software was implemented on that date and images from then on are affected
To test this, I just printed the first page of the new home page
offering, "How to build a simple breakdown clutch...etc." from 5/11/03, and the photos and text printed properly, exactly as they appear onscreen. The same for Sam's upload of his apartment Brenkert, which I printed the day it was offered in the highest priority category, both long after 11/11/02.

So is it possible there is a loophole in your security net, or
some strange inconsistency in my software that allows me to print from the homepage offerings, but not from the forums?

Gerard
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-12-2003, 11:39 AM:
 
Only pictures on forum pages are affected. Pictures uploaded by people themselves. Not pictures on any other part of the site.
 
Posted by Bob Peticolas (Member # 328) on 05-12-2003, 07:36 PM:
 
Here's a shot of one of our two old Holmes projectors. I just wish I had time to clean them up and see if they would work. We even have the rectifiers for the arcs, the old mecury vapor tube types.

 -
 
Posted by Matthew Bailey (Member # 601) on 05-12-2003, 07:39 PM:
 
Newest pic of me.  -
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 05-18-2003, 07:35 PM:
 
Actual leader found on a print. No Photoshopping.

 -

That's not very nice. [Razz]
 
Posted by Jon Miller (Member # 163) on 05-18-2003, 08:20 PM:
 
 - ...

Is that "tail" in Czech?
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 05-18-2003, 08:28 PM:
 
Swedish I believe.

Nu får det vara slut med fjäskandet!
 
Posted by Per Hauberg (Member # 529) on 05-18-2003, 08:56 PM:
 
Denmark wins again.
"Slut" means "End" in Danish. -Same word used as official "The End" in credits on screen.
Both Your pictures shows standard leader from danish Johan Ankerstjerne lab - today a part of the Nordisk Film, as everything else worth buying - but "that's another story"...

Per
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 05-19-2003, 08:46 AM:
 
It means "end" in Swedish as well, according to the dictionary I consulted. But if the leader is from a Danish lab then Danish it is.
 
Posted by Jean-Michel Grin (Member # 1360) on 05-19-2003, 03:04 PM:
 
Bad Luck for me and my weak English; I don't understand this word "Slut"
Could someone translate it for me that I could laught too ?

Thank You !
 
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-19-2003, 03:13 PM:
 
Slut = A woman with a reputation for having many & frequent sexual partners and who is probably not very selective about who she will do it with. Similar to a whore or prostitute, but a slut doesn't necessarily do it for money. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Daniel Fuentz (Member # 1684) on 05-19-2003, 06:04 PM:
 
Well, a man can be a slut, too. [Smile]

(Although, in American culture, a man that exhibits "slutty" behavior is often times considered to be a "stud" which doesn't have the same negative connotations as "slut" does.)
 
Posted by Gunnar Johansson (Member # 1661) on 05-19-2003, 06:30 PM:
 
David: That probably has to be the most clinical definition I´ve ever read, but I judge it to be correct.
Steve and Per: you are both correct. It could be either a danish or swedish ending. It´s the same word. Swedish and danish really has a lot of words in common, as with norwegian. Probably why scandinavians get along so well, except when it´s football, hockey or skiing.
It´s only one in a row of words that are funny, seemingly meaning something totally different, and we have quite a few that works the other way around...
BTW: Steve´s swedish phrase, for those who didn´t understand, means "That´s enough with all the sucking up" roughly translated... Is that a movie quote, or something you found in the dictionary?
//Gnr, who never thought slut was funny, it´s over by then
 
Posted by Per Hauberg (Member # 529) on 05-19-2003, 06:33 PM:
 
Reminds of an incident, when Queen Elisabeth once visited Denmark.
Someone at her hotel wanted the little light signs outside the lift painted over. When You push the button to make the lift come down for You, the sign lightens with the words - english version might sound "Lift is coming" - in danish "I fart"
[Big Grin]
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 05-19-2003, 10:44 PM:
 
Gunnar: That phrase was one of the sample sentences the online translation gave. Odd choice, no?

Per: Danish "fart" must have a similar basis than the German fahren (driving, traveling) or fahrt (a trip). In school we used to get a good childish laugh with "Hast du eine gute fahrt? Ja, ich habe eine sehr gute fahrt!"

For those unfamiliar with American slang "fart" refers to the passing of intestinal gas.
 
Posted by Per Hauberg (Member # 529) on 05-20-2003, 03:54 AM:
 
Steve:
Some dictionary, You've got. Yeah, we do have a bit in common with the Germans, too (But we still don't want CinemaxX here !).
"I fart" - closest translation must be "travelling" or "moving"
and at the lift "coming !"

p.
 
Posted by Gunnar Johansson (Member # 1661) on 05-20-2003, 03:55 AM:
 
Steve: Yes it seems like a really, REALLY, odd choice... Where did you find this translator? Seems like me and my friends might have some fun with that...

And yes, it´s from the same word, both danish and swedish stems from the german language family. We´ve got the same word in swedish, and it also appears in Farewell, (travel good?).

Speaking of danish, I grew up in the south of Sweden, close to Denmark, and have been watching danish television all my life. I´d say I understand danish really well, but everytime I´ve been to Denmark and tried to talk to the natives in their own tongue, they answer me in English, and I have to apologize for my bad accent, but that I understand it. Sometimes the danish beer might have had something to do with it. A lot of Swedes go to Denmark to get drunk, which prompted a campaign some years ago: Do a good deed, escort a Swede to the boat that takes him back to Sweden...."

//Gunnar
 
Posted by Per Hauberg (Member # 529) on 05-20-2003, 11:23 AM:
 
But it was the swedes, who invented "Deutschnyland" (Âppelkriget rules !) [thumbsup]
 
Posted by Gunnar Johansson (Member # 1661) on 05-20-2003, 12:30 PM:
 
Per: Jepp, one of my all time favourites. Maybe time to make a new post in the MOTD-thread... Deutshneyland is hilarious, maybe something for Michael Schaffer to take with him, maybe Disney will appreciate the competition...

The danes have the wonderful expressions hygge, rödgrön röre med flöde and Tuborg

//Gunnar
 
Posted by Per Hauberg (Member # 529) on 05-20-2003, 08:08 PM:
 
Let's try to rise money to produce "Äppelkriget Two" - The honorable Mr Schaffer as the HasseÅTage of Our day. -Men han får fråga Pappa !

p.
 
Posted by Gunnar Johansson (Member # 1661) on 05-21-2003, 03:49 AM:
 
I´m with you Per. I´ll start thinking of a screenplay immediately. The issue of enviroment is as important today as then, but maybe it´s more of americaland than deutschneyland today.
We could have Monica Z and Hasse to cameo appearances. Maybe we should call it "Päronkriget" instead. Max von Sydow could have a cameo as well.

To keep this thread from going totally of the scandinavian track I´ll post a picture of my little baby (not so little) but it´s my preciousssss...

 -

(Edit: Hey it´s my 50:th post. If I didn´t have exam saturday I´d celebrate with a beer, I´ll have to do that saturday night...)
 
Posted by Per Hauberg (Member # 529) on 05-21-2003, 07:35 AM:
 
-ein Deutschnyland-projektor !
Jetzt bitte ich Ihnen, Herr Doktor Reichtagsmann.
 
Posted by Jean-Michel Grin (Member # 1360) on 05-23-2003, 03:41 PM:
 
Thanks all for the explanation of the word "slut"
My new vocabulary will impress my friends !

Bye,
Jean-Michel
 
Posted by Matthew Bailey (Member # 601) on 05-23-2003, 10:53 PM:
 
A photo of me taken in 1999 at a native american reservation in my state.  -
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 05-25-2003, 11:04 PM:
 
 -

 -
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-26-2003, 09:51 AM:
 
We are doomed. Oh well.
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 05-26-2003, 07:02 PM:
 
I'm glad to see your dad is keeping active, Joe.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-26-2003, 08:30 PM:
 
That's not my dad.

This is my dad:

 -
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 05-26-2003, 09:45 PM:
 
That fellow in my pictures (taken yesterday) is sort of a fixture on North Michigan Avenue in Chicago (a major shopping and tourist area). During the last election his sandwich boards were saying something about Gore having been replaced by a Russian communist impostor. Oh yeah, I think he claimed that Sen. John McCain was swapped out when he was a prisoner in North Viet Nam.
 
Posted by Sam Hunter (Member # 1119) on 06-01-2003, 08:35 PM:
 
I met Wolverine and showed him who's boss.
 -
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 06-01-2003, 09:05 PM:
 
..and lost my middle finger while doing it.... [evil]

>>> Phil
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-04-2003, 04:12 PM:
 
I found this one searching on alltheweb.com (A wannabe Google):
 -
Of course, without the much celebrated hyphen, this coat is quite worthless. It is Chinese, by the way, and the crew who work on Jackie Chan films wear them I guess.
 
Posted by Per Hauberg (Member # 529) on 06-04-2003, 05:16 PM:
 
Sue the Chinese - now !
Haven't they got a bit decency towards these honored Forums ?
 
Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 06-08-2003, 04:22 PM:
 
Why couldn't we have gotten this movie?

 -
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 06-08-2003, 07:27 PM:
 
Oh what I could do with absolute power...
 
Posted by Per Hauberg (Member # 529) on 06-09-2003, 05:26 AM:
 
Bravo Ian

You've allready got Yourself a new job due to the new picture.
Look nice from behind, too [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Matthew Bailey (Member # 601) on 06-09-2003, 08:27 AM:
 
Just came back the night before yesterday from the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas 2003 powwowin my state. This is me with one of several powwow dancers.
 -
 
Posted by Per Hauberg (Member # 529) on 06-09-2003, 03:29 PM:
 
Huh, Matt - What did he put in that peace-pibe for You ??
It sure doesn't look as if it was nice, pure carbon sticks...

p.
 
Posted by Jon Miller (Member # 163) on 06-28-2003, 09:08 PM:
 
 -
 
Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 06-28-2003, 10:34 PM:
 
Well, that didn't work well! [Confused]
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-29-2003, 12:27 AM:
 
Yes it did.
 
Posted by Per Hauberg (Member # 529) on 06-29-2003, 03:31 AM:
 
quote:
To get fingered or not to get fingered - that's the question
Henry Gonzales Shakespeare (III)
 
Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 07-23-2003, 01:33 AM:
 
 -

=TMP=
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 07-24-2003, 11:44 AM:
 
 -
 
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 07-24-2003, 08:44 PM:
 
Taken with my new Canon 5 megapixel camera. Just testing. [Smile]

 -
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-29-2003, 08:50 AM:
 
David: That's a great picture to show the need for multi-megapixels when you care about image quality in digital imaging systems. Those slightly non orthogonal support wires on that suspension bridge would be very sensitive to showing "jaggies" in capture or display systems with lower resolution.
 
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 07-29-2003, 10:51 AM:
 
John, obviously I had to substantially resize that to fit the forum rules on width and file size. Suffice to say the original doesn't show any sign of jaggies or other anomalies. [Smile]
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-29-2003, 11:13 AM:
 
I know the "jaggies" that I'm seeing now are mostly from interaction with the LCD pixels on my 1024 x 768 pixel laptop display.
 
Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 08-12-2003, 01:44 AM:
 
Let's see if John Pytlak's forensic science can figure this one out!

 -

Freebie: it's not camera shake.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-12-2003, 03:59 AM:
 
You've got some nastiness on the lens. I've had ths before.

Now why not take a picture of yourself and submit it?
 
Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 08-12-2003, 06:34 AM:
 
quote:
You've got some nastiness on the lens.
What lens?

quote:
I've had ths before.
How long was it until you could use public restrooms again?

quote:
Now why not take a picture of yourself and submit it?
Brad refused my picture because it had an urn in it. He said he had nothing against finials in particular, but personally he just really didn't like urns. I was sort of taken aback.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-12-2003, 12:55 PM:
 
The camera lens. Unless this is one of those high-school projects where you use a large box with basically a pinhole cut into it and leave it sit for a long period of time.
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-12-2003, 01:56 PM:
 
No William, your face was not visible in your picture submission. If I permitted people to send in a shot of their backside, then lots of people would and that defeats the purpose.
 
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 08-12-2003, 04:26 PM:
 
There are quite a few backsides around here that I would rather not see, thank you very much.
 
Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 08-13-2003, 03:38 AM:
 
Can't you just use one of those pictures of Dan Lyons that he says he's not using?
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-13-2003, 03:40 AM:
 
No, but if you really want I'll do a Google picture search and assign you one that I feel is suitable? [evil]
 
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 08-13-2003, 04:48 AM:
 
quote:
No William, your face was not visible in your picture submission. If I permitted people to send in a shot of their backside, then lots of people would and that defeats the purpose.

Why then did you make an exception for Adam?
 
Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 08-15-2003, 02:47 AM:
 
quote:
Unless this is one of those high-school projects where you use a large box with basically a pinhole cut into it and leave it sit for a long period of time.
Buffoon! Can't the doctors control your doofusness with drugs or something? These photographs were made with newly-designed, precision, handcrafted instruments.

An historical photographic example of an architectural subject:

 -

This is the reconstruction of the Dock Street theater in Charleston, South Carolina, the first theater built in what became the United States. Looking at the building's facade, what is the first thing we notice? "Damn, that street is narrow! He had to back way down to get the photo!"

A few years ago, my intervertebral disks began popping like bubble wrap & I was looking for a basket-weaving project. Considering the problem of needing to get wide photos & that hauling the big Calumet 4x5 around was usually out because 1) weighs a ton 2) people say "Hey, what are you doing, you can't bring that in here" when you show up to do casual photography. So okay, pinhole photography is famously wide & looks like a possibility. But the resolution is also low, so generally the photographs are taken on 120 or huge sheet film. The two problems with that are 1) some really stupid box to put the film in 2) higher-cost processing or having a darkroom. Okay, everybody's had a darkroom as a kid & most have passed that stage & are happy now living without the smell, trays, bottles of chemistry, mixing junk, glassware, burning time, & all the appurtenances & crap. And the pinhole camera designs: Oatmeal boxes, hat boxes, shoe boxes & similar things - do you WANT people to call the police when it looks like you may be showing up with a box full of pigeons or rats or who knows what? It's not just socially impractical, it's silly.

Okay, so you'd need 1) easily processed film like at 35mm places or whatever & 2) a non-psycho looking thing to carry the film. that meant 35mm film, & there are already cameras which hold that format. What's the resolution going to be on a 35mm format pinhole photo? Probably not much worse than a lot of really grainy early photos.

If using 35mm film & all you want is the box to hold the film & the film transport mechanism - there are BILLIONS of subjects out there for horrible experimentation. Cheap plastic throwaway cameras to be hacked & mutilated. They can be found stacked in bins at Goodwill & bargain stores.

 -

Here are some of the "surviving" cameras which, thinking they were being saved from dumpsterization at Goodwill, sadly fell into my clutches. Many were mangled & tossed. Basically, you do some disassembly, pull out the shutter, & put a pinhole in there. The 3 critically nasty parts of the design are 1) a very good pinhole with no aberrations 2) a new shutter design to keep light off the film when not taking a photo 3) minimizing camera shake - essential because of longer exposure times.

Originally, I thought the best path would be with modifying the plastic cameras with little sliding doors over the lens. They actually had two deficiencies 1) they are lightest in weight & most susceptible to camera shake 2) the openings in the at the little door are small & occlude the wide image taken by the pinhole.

 -

The best bodies turn out to be the type of plastic fake SLR's best known as the cameras of the type that were heaved out in truckloads as premiums for getting a subscription to Time magazine. There are others of similar design, & even the Time cameras had apparently 3 different designs & manufacturers. But they all have 1) a big chunk of pot metal in the bottom to make them feel heavy, that makes them sit steadily when you open the shutter 2) whent the big lens/aperture structures are removed to install the pinhole, the opening is pretty wide.

If you just disassemble the front, scoop out the shutter, & mount a pinhole on the plane where the shutter was, you get something around the equivalent of a 35mm lens. Then the problem of the shutter. It's neccessary to keep the pinhole covered, then to remove the cover with ZERO shake. The best solution was found to be cutting the lid & wide threaded neck from a big vitamin jar (opening about the size of the front of the camera), taping it with black gaff tape to the camera, keeping the lid screwed on when not making an exposure. To make the exposure, the camera is set down, the lid unscrewed to the end of the thread but still over the unthreaded section of the neck & not admitting light, then carefully removing the lid entirely without moving the camera. The 2nd best solution was found to be to replace the original fascia which supported the rotating aperture ring, covering the hole in the aperture ring on both sides with black gaff tape, & using its "loose fit at top, snug fit all the way down" characteristic in a similar way as the jar lid.

Get the pictures done at Wal-Mart 1 hour, where they only charge for the pictures that turn out, & will probably lose money when you show up.

If you pull out the original plastic divider where the shutter was mounted & mount the pinhole closer to the film, you get a hugely wide image - but come up against the problem again of occlusion by the camera body.

 -

A typical problem is different kinds of aberrations in the pinhole causing aberrations in the photo, as in the auditorium picture. Couple it with a too-small front opening for compound problems that make the photo counter people look at your pictures with squinty eyes & confused faces.

 -

There is something strangely voyeuristic about the pictures that are like looking through a hole. Are you looking into some strange, horrible new world, or out of one?

Absolutely still subjects are best: interiors, architecture, etc. If there is any movement, it blurs & has weird appearances - running water looks like a river of frozen sputum, trees look like they've got fuzzies on the ends of their branches. Even if they're still, landscapes are wide & strangely bleak looking. But the cameras excel at low-light & night photography. Just take them outside & come back in a couple of hours.

 -

The worst part about the cheapo plastic cameras is their film transports break apart and/or scratch film. I've been through tons of those cameras which broke their transports, & I'll bet that rathere than introduce people to the Wonderful World of Photography, it P'd them off & finished it for them.

The best part is taking horribly screwed up photos & seeing the look of fear on the faces of the photo counter people when you approach. The 2nd best is keeping an envelope of the last screwy pictures handy so that when others pull out their boring photos & exert social pressure for you to look on & approve, you can say "I got some of my pictures back, too!" & pull out strange, aggravating pictures. Watch people as they squint at them & desperately try to figure out what it is, what went wrong, why the hell someone has these pictures.

 -

 -

Things are equally in focus from a millimeter in front of the lens to infinity. Using the slowest film available (usually 100 ASA) exposures are 3 to 5 seconds outside, 50-60 seconds inside. With a good pinhole & fine grained slow film, the pictures can be pretty sharp! With long exposures, people & traffic going by usually don't even show up.

In low light situation, just set it down & come back hours later.
If there is almost NO light, you can't see hardly anything, the camera will find it & suck it up. It's interesting how the night really is blue.
 
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-15-2003, 07:57 AM:
 
Kodak's 126 film format was "the" pin-hole camera film! It had everything you need. It contained the film, had it's own aperture/film plane, told you what frame number you were on...easily wound with your finger or pocket change and was real easy to make a pin-hole attachment for.

Here is a how-to for making a 126 pin-hole camera

Pinhole camera assembly instructions

The hitch is, I don't think Kodak makes 126 anymore and I don't know who does, if anyone. It was an odd format that had a popularity in its day. The aperture is square. For "wide" shots, just rotate the camera 45-degrees and you get the diagonal for your width.

Steve
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 08-16-2003, 01:55 AM:
 
126 was the original Instamatic format so yeah it was enormously popular until the 110 Pocket Instamatic format started cutting into it. At the time 35mm was really only popular among pros, serious amateurs, and just a small segment of average folks taking snapshots or slides. The mass popularity didn't come til much later with the advent of auto exposure SLR's like the Canon AE-1 etc. BTW, in case anyone doesn't realize it, 126 film is 35mm in width while 110 is 16mm wide. Non sprocketed in both cases except for a single indexing perf that would stop the cameras' film advance mechanism. Kodak wisely maximized the use of their slitting machines.

Also popular in its day:

 -
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-16-2003, 03:17 AM:
 
William I'm pretty darn confident that you have a camera. Why not point it at yourself and send in a member picture? No excuses!
 
Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 08-19-2003, 02:27 AM:
 
Steve, I give up, what's the camera?

Joe, yeah, right, I send in a picture, & two days later it gets cutely modified like Steve Guttag's was; maybe cropped so that it looks like a full frame picture that was printed through an Academy gate or something. That would be a film geek laff riot!
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-19-2003, 03:45 AM:
 
That's the most pathetic excuse for not sending in a picture I've ever heard William. Besides, even if that was the case have you no sense of humor at all? At least the people who say things like "I am so ugly I will break people's computer monitors" have a somewhat reasonable excuse, but still ridiculous since I doubt those people walk around with a bag over their head all day in public.
 
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-19-2003, 06:29 AM:
 
I believe most of the pictures are modified either by the person submitting or with their approval. Of the pictures of me not "approved"...all have been removed immediately. The current one of me...the changeover one...was done by someone else, yet I get compliments for it from time-to-time. Most people never seem to notice that both changeovers are botched either! (never mind the dirt and scratches that preceed each changeover.

Steve
 
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 08-19-2003, 11:31 AM:
 
We wouldn't think of waiting two days to modify your photo. It will immediately get mailed to Joe and myself so that we can have a competition with it. [Wink] Actually, I don't have time to play with member photos right now ... I'm too busy with Cinematour.

I'm glad Steve has finally warmed up to his botched changeover photo. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 08-20-2003, 03:21 AM:
 
 -
 
Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 09-22-2003, 04:18 AM:
 
 -
Mars & the moon over Mobile.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-22-2003, 04:27 AM:
 
Well since William obviously has a camera, maybe we should restrict his photo-uploading priveledges until he submits an actual pic of himself. Just a thought. [Smile]

If you are afraid of the pic getting "altered", I don't think you have much to worry about at this time. Members who have their pics altered are usually super-frequent posters and people known personally in real life by Brad, Adam, or myself. Sure, sometimes a pic gets altered of someone we haven't met, but we still know them very well through the forum.

I'm pretty sure that you're just camera shy. So is Brad. He HATES pictures of himself. But he's had quite a few different ones on the site.
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-22-2003, 04:42 AM:
 
Old and new Hancock buildings in downtown Boston. This was my first attempt with a 4x5 Speed Graphic camera. This was taken yesterday morning (handheld!) on Polaroid type 54. The dust is from the scanner. I also took the same shot on Kodak Tri-X (also in 4x5), but I won't get that one to the lab until tonight.

 -
 
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 09-22-2003, 10:59 AM:
 
C'Mon, Scott! Where's the "cliché shot"? Every budding photographer in Boston has taken it! You know the one... Trinity Church reflected in the glass of the new Hancock!

I KNOW you want to shoot it! [Big Grin]
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-22-2003, 11:39 AM:
 
William Hooper asked:

quote:
Steve, I give up, what's the camera?

It's a Technicolor 3-Strip camera (note the beamsplitter):

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/oldcolor/technicolor7.htm
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 09-22-2003, 07:03 PM:
 
Correct. That view is looking straight in from where the lens would be if the front door (to the left) were closed. That's the red / blue bipack gate just left of the center (you can see the pulldown claw and registration pins) while the green gate is straight beyond the prism.

This camera is now privately owned by a collector.
 
Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 09-22-2003, 08:53 PM:
 
Well, he's going to kill me if he sees this but here is a picture of me and Don from the cruise. He looks so handsome in a suit!!! [Smile]

 -
 
Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 09-23-2003, 12:52 AM:
 
Joe, your feeble taunts do not intimidate me. Edward Jurich will tell you that I fear nothing, except maybe a 16 foot diaphone coming loose from its hanger or having to ever eat at Subway again.

 -

Gratified?
 
Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 09-23-2003, 01:50 AM:
 
Is that supposed to be you?!?!?!? [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-23-2003, 02:11 AM:
 
Randy -- NO! Not that shot! [Smile] Trinity Church is under renovation right now, anyway, and is surrounded by scaffolding and chain-link fences.

This is the closest that I will go (is it obvious that I love the art-deco-ness of the old Hancock building?):

 -
 
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 09-23-2003, 10:57 AM:
 
William Hooper is a prison inmate? Oh, yeah. I forgot prisoners get better internet access than the rest of us.
 
Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 09-23-2003, 03:29 PM:
 
I just bought a new digital camera. It's not the best out there but it seems to take decent pictures.

 -
 
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 09-23-2003, 04:35 PM:
 
I suppose that means you'll be sending in a member pic momentarily.
 
Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 09-23-2003, 04:48 PM:
 
Actually, I sent one in a few days ago, but I got those undeliverable things like some other people. I stopped getting them So, I assume that it went through.
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-23-2003, 04:50 PM:
 
received ok
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 09-23-2003, 07:43 PM:
 
Scott: What a GREAT pic!!!!! It is very creative and unique! I love it! Please just crop that f*cking pole outta it! [Big Grin]

>>> Phil
 
Posted by Gracia L. Babbidge (Member # 582) on 09-23-2003, 11:53 PM:
 
I've also submitted a new pic to replace the one you see to the left... [eyes]

Or maybe it was deemed too risqué? [uhoh]
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-24-2003, 03:49 PM:
 
Phil, why crop out the pole and have an oddly oriented picture when you can just Photoshop out the pole completely and make it look like it was never there? It's as simple as the UNIX fsck -y command!
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-24-2003, 05:55 PM:
 
Joe--thanks for volunteering to photoshop the pic above to remove the pole. I expect a full-resolution version of the retouched photo by 8:00am tomorrow morning.

Here's a shot of my other favorite building within five minutes' walking distance from my apartment. This is the McKim building of the Boston Public Library. This is a scan of a contact print from a 4x5 Tri-X negative that I took with the Speed Graphic (aka "the 40-year-old 200 megapixel digital camera"):

 -
 
Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 09-25-2003, 10:57 AM:
 
I love that building but you really need to see the whole thing to appreciate the architecture. It is truly beautiful in person, although the picture is nice too! [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Scott D. Neff (Member # 185) on 09-25-2003, 03:02 PM:
 
Man I've been away too long.

When did Adam's picture change? And where the hell did that come from? Was I there? Was I drunk?
 
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 09-25-2003, 03:03 PM:
 
You don't remember taking that photo? You were laughing at the cop the whole time!
 
Posted by Scott D. Neff (Member # 185) on 09-25-2003, 03:08 PM:
 
Oh right -- that must've been when I got my $16 speeding ticket in North Dakota. I told you not to take a shot right in front of the trooper.
 
Posted by Sam Hunter (Member # 1119) on 09-25-2003, 03:40 PM:
 
The pizza man in the sky:

 -
 
Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 09-25-2003, 03:41 PM:
 
HAHA, did you take that Sam?
 
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 09-25-2003, 03:43 PM:
 
Oh ... don't take a shot in front of the trooper. I must have misunderstood your slurred speech.
 
Posted by Sam Hunter (Member # 1119) on 09-25-2003, 03:52 PM:
 
Yes I did.
Here is some thing that you don't find in theaters:
 -

The building was crawling in snakes.
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 09-25-2003, 04:25 PM:
 
Sam: That cloud pic is great! I remember as a kid we used to campout and try to make things from the clouds on a windy, moonlit night.

>>> Phil
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-25-2003, 06:13 PM:
 
 -
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 09-25-2003, 06:33 PM:
 
Joe: That pic is priceless... A TRUE "KODAK MOMENT"! HAhahaha I love it! [beer]

>>> Phil
 
Posted by Floyd Justin Newton (Member # 1316) on 09-26-2003, 06:05 PM:
 
Phil--

Me, too !

FJN
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 09-28-2003, 09:44 AM:
 
 -

Looks like the ELR issue was solved decades ago. It holds two 22" reels (nominal 5000' but probably more with polyester), fixed hub in this case.
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-28-2003, 10:48 AM:
 
The ELR reels and shipping cases that the Inter-Society proposed were very robust and well engineered. Both Technicolor and Goldberg proposed very sturdy cases. Bobby Pinkston was the chair of the ELR committee, and was very aware of these Cinerama shippers and the ones used in Europe. What ended up being used by the distributors was compromised by cost-cutting.
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 09-29-2003, 12:02 AM:
 
John, were these Goldberg metal cases for Cinerama or 3D or perhaps both used them? (The one pictured is carrying "Cinerama Adventure" hence the logo.)
 
Posted by Gracia L. Babbidge (Member # 582) on 10-01-2003, 12:46 AM:
 
ok then ... just because I feel like showing this picture anyway...

 -

And yes, I am topless in the picture! [Big Grin] [Wink]

And while I'm at it, this is my fuzzy pal, Kashmir.

 -
 
Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 10-01-2003, 01:43 AM:
 
 -

It's polychrome terracotta partytime on the facade of the Orpheum in New Orleans!
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-01-2003, 01:45 AM:
 
Gracia, show us pics of the cat's tattoo! [Smile]

That would be awesome to see a dog or cat with a tattoo!
 
Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 10-01-2003, 06:42 PM:
 
I think we all agree that my cat is better.

Here are the twins:

 -

And my mom's cat:

 -

I wish I had something else to take pictures of.
 
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 10-01-2003, 07:34 PM:
 
Dog? Want a picture of a dog?

 -
 
Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 10-01-2003, 08:08 PM:
 
That's cool
 
Posted by Gracia L. Babbidge (Member # 582) on 10-02-2003, 12:22 AM:
 
Who said anything about a pussy cat with a tattoo?

...and one more random picture of me...

 -
 
Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 10-02-2003, 07:23 AM:
 
Whew, she's got her clothes on! [Smile] Just kidding Gracia. Good picture of you though!
 
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 10-02-2003, 10:41 AM:
 
Very good picture
 
Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 10-02-2003, 12:37 PM:
 
What's with people posting pictures of their naked animals?

I'm offended. [Razz]

I thought we had a thread for those at one time... "Where the heck is your dog's picture" or something...

=TMP=
 
Posted by Steven Privett (Member # 718) on 10-02-2003, 12:56 PM:
 
I'd like to see the release forms for these pictures. Did these animals give the OK to have their pictures used? I'm pretty sure the dog with the sunglasses on his ass would protest.
 
Posted by Gracia L. Babbidge (Member # 582) on 10-02-2003, 10:15 PM:
 
Thanks ... I was rather happy with that one. [Smile]
 
Posted by Sam Hunter (Member # 1119) on 10-02-2003, 10:41 PM:
 
Get your shades out for this one:
 -
 
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 10-02-2003, 11:00 PM:
 
Took this while waiting at the gate in Terminal 1 at Pearson one morning. At least their service pack was nearly up-to-date.

 -
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-03-2003, 12:53 AM:
 
Daryl's picture after being properly compressed for the web:
 -
 
Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 10-03-2003, 01:01 AM:
 
Sam needs a Nehru jacket to go with his new Dr. Evil haircut.
 
Posted by Barry Floyd (Member # 385) on 10-03-2003, 01:15 AM:
 
ok then ... just because I feel like showing this picture anyway...
 -

And yes... I'm topless in the picture! [Big Grin] [Wink]
I just got in from building prints...... I still hate that part of this job!
 
Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 10-03-2003, 11:01 AM:
 
 -

 -

Who says Canadians don't have a sense of humor?
 
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 10-03-2003, 12:15 PM:
 
Who said Canadians sell fuel by the gallon? [Confused]
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-04-2003, 02:33 AM:
 
 -
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 10-04-2003, 11:34 PM:
 
Creative building illumination by long-suffering baseball fans (taken 10/4/03 at about 11:45pm - 70 second time exposure at f/4.7 on Polaroid 4x5 type 54).

 -
 
Posted by Gracia L. Babbidge (Member # 582) on 10-05-2003, 01:19 AM:
 
Gee, what is that they say? That mimicry is the highest form of flattery?
[Big Grin] [evil]
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 10-05-2003, 08:42 AM:
 
Miscellaneous pics are great but I think the purely comic stuff is best posted in the Martini Man's forum!
 
Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 10-05-2003, 11:43 AM:
 
Yo, Joe!
I like your "Darby & Joan" picture. Got the message immediately, but the construction details came slowly, starting with the miniature Joan in Darby's ear and ending with his sombrero. Fun! Who's the artist?
Gerard
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-05-2003, 05:53 PM:
 
I have no idea. It looks like Al Jafee.
 
Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 10-06-2003, 02:10 AM:
 
If you have a plasma screen, you could check it by folding it in thirds.
 
Posted by George Roher (Member # 91) on 10-06-2003, 04:18 PM:
 
Here's a lamp that's seen better days...

 -
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-06-2003, 06:19 PM:
 
That's cool. What is that? A 1600K?
 
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 10-06-2003, 07:53 PM:
 
Looks like 1.6K or 2K.

I don't see what's wrong with it though. [Confused]
 
Posted by George Roher (Member # 91) on 10-06-2003, 09:33 PM:
 
It's a 2k Osram. It had less then 300 hours on it when it failed.
 
Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 10-06-2003, 10:04 PM:
 
Me headed down Splash Mountain.
 -
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 10-06-2003, 11:02 PM:
 
So Mike...Great pic of you in the child seat....

>>> Phil
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 10-07-2003, 08:43 AM:
 
Mike's Splash Mountain photo courtesy of Kodak:

http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,11712,00.html
quote:

Amusement Acquisition: a Kodak Moment

Randolph Court

03:23 PM Apr. 16, 1998 PT

You're strapped into a hollowed-out log about to drop 50 feet straight into the water. With your hair standing on end and your jaw in your lap, your face becomes a portrait of exhilaration, panic, and motion sickness. Best of all, it's on film –- cameras installed on thrill rides at theme parks from Disneyland's Splash Mountain to the looping Great Bear at Hershey Park in Pennsylvania catch you mid-ride and then sell your pictures for about US$10 so you can remember that moment forever.

Now the folks in Rochester, New York, want to make that a Kodak moment. Hoping to bolster a little corner of its vast -– but struggling -- US$14.5 billion imaging empire, Eastman Kodak Co. said Wednesday that it acquired Rave Reviews Innovative Concessions Inc. and Rave Reviews of Canada for an undisclosed sum. The two affiliated companies design and install photographic systems for thrill rides and other image-related businesses in theme parks.

"It's one more indication that we're very enthusiastic about this business -- and that we intend to be a leader in it for the long term," said Doug Pileri, general manager of Kodak's "themed entertainment" business, in a statement. "Current parks are expanding. New ones are being built. All of them provide great channels for our expanding variety of Kodak's entertainment-imaging products."

Kodak also posted first quarter profits of $225 million on Wednesday, up 50 percent from the $149 million of a year ago. But that success followed a year in which the world's largest maker of photographic film announced it would have to slash its payroll by 16,000 workers in a bid to shed $1 billion in costs. It has been suffering losses in part due to stiff competition from Fuji Photo Film of Japan.

But Kodak is not wasting its energy in a stubborn bid to hold on to its eroding share of the consumer print market. Instead, the company has been turning its sights to new markets, like digital imaging, where it saw somewhat encouraging signs this quarter -- that business improved from a loss of $140 million in last year's first quarter to a loss of only $55 million this quarter.

Kodak’s entertainment-imaging division, which includes its motion-picture film business, showed increased sales from 1996 to 1997. One part of entertainment imaging is the themed entertainment business, which provides imaging products and services to theme parks, studio-owned retail ventures, movie theaters, and the like. That's where Rave Reviews fits in.

Kodak said the Rave companies will be dissolved and integrated into the rest of the themed entertainment businesses operated under Kodak's entertainment-imaging division, which is working on a whole range of newfangled variations on the photography business. That means stuff like sticker photos, fantasy theaters that allow you to superimpose an image of yourself into any scene you want (say sliding into home plate in a major league baseball game), and dynamic imaging technologies that make it possible to put a few seconds of full-motion video onto a trading card.

Kodak has also developed its own still-photo system for the thrill ride market. Rave Reviews also developed a video system, but that's not the reason Kodak bought the company, according to Mark Stolper, director of strategic alliances and portfolio management for Kodak's Entertainment Imaging businesses.

"The purpose of purchasing [Rave Reviews] was not a tech play," Stolper said. "It was more of a distribution play."

Stolper said theme parks have been signing long-term contracts with little imaging companies like Rave Reviews and RX Technology to provide the thrill-ride photography system for individual rides. Rave Reviews claimed 40 installations in six theme parks in the United States and Canada.

And the photos seem to be popular. People apparently love to be caught in the act of doing whatever they do in that moment of wild surrender: whether they scream, cry, or take off their clothes. A number of young women apparently prefer the latter, as the Flash Mountain site has chronicled.

By buying Rave Reviews. Kodak immediately lands 40 installations in six theme parks -- including four Paramount Parks -- where Rave Reviews has established itself.

"It helps us build the thrill-ride photography business we're already in, and it allows us to expand our distribution system to provide other added- value Kodak products, such as sticker kiosks, and fantasy theaters," said Stolper.

Stolper said it is too soon to know how big the thrill-ride photography business will be in the United States, but he pointed optimistically to the successes of other new businesses elsewhere. Sticker kiosks, which are just catching on in the United States, are already a US$1 billion a year business in Japan.


 
Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 10-07-2003, 06:25 PM:
 
Nice pic Scott!

GO SOX!!!
 
Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 10-08-2003, 08:14 PM:
 
I present to you...

Mr. & Mrs. Jason A. Black
Married 10-04-03.

 -

Below is a better, (nearly) full-body shot.

 -

[ 10-09-2003, 09:03 AM: Message edited by: Jason Black ]
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 10-08-2003, 08:17 PM:
 
Jason, great pics! Congrats!

(The look in your eyes in the 2nd pic is priceless!) [beer] [Razz] [evil]

>>> Phil
 
Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 10-08-2003, 09:58 PM:
 
Snapped this shot of one of nature oddities while out and about the other day. His name is 'One Eye Jack', which, after all, seems rather appropriate given the situation. He seems to be relatively tame, for a squirrel. He loves peanuts!

 -
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 10-09-2003, 10:32 AM:
 
Jason: Congratulations on your marriage! Betsy and I just celebrated 31 years (October 7, 1972). [thumbsup]
 
Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 10-09-2003, 11:00 AM:
 
Congrats Jason and John! [thumbsup]
 
Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 10-09-2003, 04:07 PM:
 
John...

Congrats.. [thumbsup]

Phil & Rachel & John,

Thanks.. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 10-10-2003, 12:51 AM:
 
Tell your wife congrats too, that dress (from what I can see) is beautiful!
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 10-13-2003, 06:53 PM:
 
Congrats to those who can rope them in and those who can hold on to them.

---

Conventional wisdom: Large format films are always edited via 35mm reduction prints.

 -

 -

Not necessarily! [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 10-13-2003, 07:16 PM:
 
Is that a 15/70 Steenbeck clone? Ummm....why? What's wrong with conforming 15/65 neg to 4/35 workprint?
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 10-13-2003, 07:45 PM:
 
Actually that is a KEM which runs 70/5 or 70/8. But they do indeed make a 70/15 unit too:

 -

 -
 
Posted by Josh Jones (Member # 447) on 10-18-2003, 04:01 PM:
 
Belated congrats Jason [thumbsup]

By the way, how do those flat bed editors work? do they use a rotating prism like the cheap editor I worked with?

Josh
 
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 10-18-2003, 04:12 PM:
 
Yes, congratulations!

Btw, I thought most everything these days is done on an Avid or FCP?
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 10-18-2003, 06:36 PM:
 
I'm actually most curious about the sprockets on the 15 perf unit as they almost look like rubber rollers. Pinch roller drive would complicate both sync and keeping the rotating prism in step. But it occurs to me that one could have a rubber roller WITH steel sprocket teeth. The teeth keep everything aligned but having the rest of the sprocket be a full contact soft rubber roller would spread the load and reduce the risk of tearing the film on starting and stopping.

BTW, if anyone is in need of an ordinary 35mm KEM let me know.
 
Posted by German Marin (Member # 918) on 10-18-2003, 08:03 PM:
 
This guy look like someone I know...

 -
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 10-18-2003, 10:31 PM:
 
The 16mm and 35mm Steenbecks that I've used have rotating prisms. Newer models (which I haven't seen) have "flickerless" picture heads which presumably are an improvement on the original design. It works the same way as a standard 16mm tabletop viewer (e.g. Moviescope, etc.). I assume that the 70mm (!) versions work the same way. At least on the east coast US, Steenbecks seem to be far more common than KEM or Moviola flatbeds, so I can't comment on those (since I haven't seen them). The nicest 16mm model is an 8-plate version with two soundheads and two picture heads.

Can anyone explain how the 35mm Steenbeck works when set up for CinemaScope? Does it use a different picture head entirely?
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 10-18-2003, 10:53 PM:
 
I've never used or serviced a Steenbeck so can't comment too much about them. Probably much the same only different. I think they drive the plates mechanically from the main motor rather than with individual winding motors as on a KEM. The later KEM picture heads were also considered "flickerless" but this is only by comparison with the old ones. As the film moves through it the prism facets track the frames and a kind of lap dissolve takes place but there is still a tiny displacement between outgoing image and incoming hence a bit of flicker at speed.

The old units had a solid prism set back a bit from the film plane with a thin meniscus lens in between. I have forgotten how many facets; perhaps 8. The flickerless head has a much larger prism with more facets and the film runs very close over the outside. The rotating prism is actually hollow with a smooth circular opening inside. The interior space has two trapezoidal prisms which together take the image from one inner surface to the opposite side, almost but not quite touching the interior curving surface of the rotating prism.

On a KEM Universal & Universal Junior the picture modules (which only contain a sprocket that drives the prism, the film drive sprockets being on the main table) simply lift off and can be swapped as needed. Large Academy, Small Academy, Scope, or even 16mm can be placed on the machine. Older modules fit as well. Scope modules have a knob to select Academy, 1.85, or Scope. (Older ones only offered 1.85 or Academy).

On the RS ("Rapid") machines (KEM's answer to Steenbeck with a large variable speed control knob) there is a similar choice of modules. On these units the drive sprocket is part of the prism assembly and the module is linked to the machine by a rubber spline but modules are still interchangeable and the K800 and older KS take the same modules.

Finally, the later KS (dunno why they reused the name) are fairly non modular as the mechanism and most of the optics are part of the basic table. But even these can convert back and forth. There is no picture module per se but the screen unit with a few of the mirrors can come off and the lens changed. I recall doing such a switch as an LA rental unit came off of one film's account and onto another's.
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-19-2003, 01:55 AM:
 
Note to self - never trust Tom for finding the lowest prices.

 -

This item should be in the $60-80 range.

http://tomshardware.bizrate.com/,mss__cat_id--410,prod_id--7385438,rf--wgg,title--Wd400jb.html
 
Posted by Ron Lacheur (Member # 1126) on 10-19-2003, 02:00 AM:
 
Brad, I think that price is for 20 of those hard drives. Note the " 20pk " in the item description.
 
Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 10-19-2003, 02:28 AM:
 
$60-$80 would be a serious rip-off, I bought my 120gb for my Tivo at Fry's for $100. All the other specs were the same as those.
 
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 10-19-2003, 03:04 AM:
 
$60 - $80 isn't a rip off... the only difference between the 40GB drive and the 120GB drive is that the 40GB drive will contain two blank platters. Other than that they still cost the same amount to manufacture and assemble.
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-19-2003, 03:21 AM:
 
Aha, good call Ron! [Wink]
 
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 10-19-2003, 04:18 AM:
 
OK, I admit, during the odd dusk-till-dawn I want to go home early.

 -
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 10-19-2003, 02:33 PM:
 
Ah yes, Daryl...as John would say..."Film Done Right"... [beer]

OBTW: What is that next to the Windex? Your bottle of "personal lubricant"? [evil]

>>> Phil
 
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 10-19-2003, 08:02 PM:
 
Phil the bottle beside the windex is the lubricant
 
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 10-19-2003, 10:19 PM:
 
I've always wondered what the Windex was for... there's no port glass.

The other bottle is mosquito spray.
 
Posted by Gracia L. Babbidge (Member # 582) on 10-20-2003, 02:33 AM:
 
heh, that other bottle looks like nothing other than a bottle of Avon's "Skin So Soft" ... it is not the best 'insect repellant'. [Razz]

However, if you want to repel the opposite sex, mist yourself with it. [evil]
 
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 10-20-2003, 11:11 PM:
 
I sure hope this post makes Mike Olpin happy.
 
Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 10-20-2003, 11:45 PM:
 
Happy Halloween!

 -

Here is a really cool guy dressed as an obscure super hero and his brother dressed as a clown.

----------------------
BTW, Thanks Adam. I hate being stuck at the botom of a page. No one ever looks down there.
 
Posted by Jarred Olsen (Member # 1833) on 10-22-2003, 03:19 AM:
 
Here's me saving the world from yet another bad movie!

 -
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-22-2003, 03:23 AM:
 
Hey Brad, nab that one! We take member pics any way we get them. [Smile]
 
Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 10-22-2003, 03:56 AM:
 
quote:
We take member pics any way we get them
 -
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-22-2003, 11:47 AM:
 
Within reason, foo.
 
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 10-22-2003, 12:26 PM:
 
I already hounded Jarred for a photo in the chat room and sent it to Brad.

William Hooper is just asking for me to go there and take his photo myself. [evil]
 
Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 10-23-2003, 02:08 AM:
 
I'm sorry, but I think I'm out of town that week.
I hope this is not inconvenient.

 -
 
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 10-28-2003, 10:43 PM:
 
This is a screen capture from my new HDTV tuner card.

 -
 
Posted by Steven Privett (Member # 718) on 10-28-2003, 11:08 PM:
 
I'm trying to figure out what the "W" is in Adam's forum picture. I have a couple of guesses. [Wink]
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 10-28-2003, 11:14 PM:
 
Steven, it's cuz Adam thinks there is a "big" treasure located below the big "W"...

David, which card are you using? Do you like it?

>>> Phil
 
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 10-28-2003, 11:25 PM:
 
On the recommendation of a friend, I got the MyHD MDP-120. I'm happy with it in HD mode; up-rez'd DVDs look very good too. But I'm not so happy with the performance of the regular TV tuner and the accompanying software. And getting aspect ratios right is a bitch. Very confusing, lots of options, and everything seems to interact... [Mad]
 
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 10-28-2003, 11:32 PM:
 
"Whatever!" (in response to Steven's question, not David's new toy)
 
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 11-05-2003, 02:45 PM:
 
Microsoft Word must be used to make all signs. Especially signs for retards.

 -
 
Posted by Robert D. LaValley (Member # 1867) on 11-05-2003, 04:18 PM:
 
why do all the pictures say illegal picture?
 
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 11-05-2003, 04:22 PM:
 
Please read the FAQ about adjusting your browser/privacy settings to allow proper headers. There's a FAQ link at the top of every forum page.
 
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 11-05-2003, 06:10 PM:
 
A friend at the satellite communications company I used to work for sent this--it's a warning sign posted at the company's teleport in Fillmore, CA. (Sorry for the lousy compression--the original looked a lot better at 1600x1200...)

 -
 
Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 11-05-2003, 07:13 PM:
 
There is a sign at the NSSTC building where I go for meetings frequently that is the same as the "Don't look into the laser with remaining eye." It's next to the real version of the sign.

It's a coincidence that I just saw a sign just like that yesterday (Tuesday) morning!
 
Posted by Per Hauberg (Member # 529) on 11-07-2003, 05:52 PM:
 
"Under the big W" - Smiler Grogan hits again - Hip hip... !
 
Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 11-07-2003, 08:37 PM:
 
Make your own safety sign here.

Safety Sign Maker
 
Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 11-10-2003, 01:30 AM:
 
 -
 
Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 11-10-2003, 03:09 PM:
 
I made one that says "DANGER - DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE" and I'm going to put it on a water fountain soon. [Smile]
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-10-2003, 03:18 PM:
 
quote:
I made one that says "DANGER - DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE" and I'm going to put it on a water fountain soon.

Over 400,000 people die annually from overexposure to DiHydrogen Monoxide! [Eek!]

DiHydrogen Monoxide Death Statistics
 
Posted by Matthew Peters (Member # 1495) on 11-10-2003, 10:27 PM:
 
Out of curiosity if you upload two pictures onto this forum with the same filename, will there be two discrete files or will one overwrite the other?

I found a post I made a while back and the picture had changed to a picture someone else had uploaded.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-10-2003, 10:49 PM:
 
If a picture called "pic.jpg" is uploaded, any subsequent attempts at uploading a file called "pic.jpg" will be denied.
 
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 11-11-2003, 12:44 AM:
 
No, if two files with the same name are uploaded, they're saved in parity mode.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-11-2003, 01:01 AM:
 
What's that? I've always been denied.
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-11-2003, 07:37 AM:
 
Joe, your second pic was saved via steganography and is hidden among the other pics on the site so it will be available to al Queda.
 
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-11-2003, 07:47 AM:
 
Thats right John...lets ban DiHydrogen Monoxide and see how the population is affected! The study was not limited to water though...the claim was drowning within a liquid or that drowning was defined as repritory failure due to a liquid...so lets ban all liquids...after all...lives are at stake here! [Roll Eyes]

The scary thing is that while the above was taken and given in jest...there are people that "think" that way...if we can just save one life...it is worth denying everyone else a more enjoyable life.

Steve
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-11-2003, 10:52 AM:
 
Thanks for your insight, Steve. I'm sure that all the people who suffer to provide "everyone else a more enjoyable life" appreciate the sentiment. [Roll Eyes]

As you note, the thread was in a jesting mode. It didn't need to turn sour.
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 11-12-2003, 05:41 AM:
 
Hmmm... they say it may rain tonight....

>>> Phil
 
Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 11-12-2003, 05:49 AM:
 
Hmmmm back....we need Lena Horne to sing "Stormy Weather" [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-12-2003, 04:07 PM:
 
quote:
Jiggidy J-Pyt wrote:
As you note, the thread was in a jesting mode. It didn't need to turn sour.

It didn't turn sour until you started posting facts that make people sad. [Smile]
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-12-2003, 09:25 PM:
 
When you know the facts, maybe you can do more to improve the situation. If anything, people might be more careful when they swim or go boating. Saving even one life would be a happy event. [Smile]
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-12-2003, 10:40 PM:
 
How do you know if you've saved a life if the person never dies? The person would have to come very close to death in order for you to be sure.

Anyway, with overpopulation what it is, I'm not too sad about death. I would think differently if people didn't feel the need to have so many damned kids. Really people, are so many kids REALLY necessary?

Anyway, there is a time and a place for facts that make people sad. When people are joking around is not one of those times.
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-13-2003, 06:03 AM:
 
quote:
I'm not too sad about death. I would think differently if people didn't feel the need to have so many damned kids. Really people, are so many kids REALLY necessary?

If a person close to you died a needless death, you would feel differently. I can't feel anything but sad about an accidental or tragic death, no matter where it occurs. Not only for the person, but for their family. [Frown]
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 11-13-2003, 06:25 AM:
 
It snowed today in Los Angeles....

>>> Phil
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-13-2003, 09:39 AM:
 
And it's going to be a blizzard in Rochester, with 60mph winds and blowing snow. Lots of trees and powerlines down already, and it hasn't even started to snow yet. [Eek!]
 
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 11-13-2003, 09:43 AM:
 
We are getting gusts of 120K down here on the lake
 
Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 11-13-2003, 09:58 AM:
 
It's a frigid 60 degrees here is Texas. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 11-13-2003, 10:04 AM:
 
It's a little windy here... my satellite dish got ripped off the wall at about 5am.

I wish it would snow some more, a lot more. I'm getting tired of just looking at my skis.
 
Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 11-13-2003, 11:27 AM:
 
It snowed for about 5 minutes here last night...
 
Posted by Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 11-13-2003, 11:51 AM:
 
Daryl,

Your ski's flew by my window about eight this morning and knocked out our power for about three hours. Your ski's looked to me to be heading toward my Newport house. I will use them on the snow we are expecting tonight.

Don't worry I will return them ......sometime. [Smile]
 
Posted by Josh Jones (Member # 447) on 11-13-2003, 12:51 PM:
 
quote:
It's a frigid 60 degrees here is Texas.
Bitch bitch bitch, its 20 here, and it snowed for like 5 hours here, this is considered tropical [Wink]

Josh
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 11-13-2003, 02:29 PM:
 
Oh come on Daryl... the wind ripped off your dish? HA! You're always "dishing" somebody.

The current temperature in Los Angeles is a chilly 65 degrees. Yesterday brought 5 inches of rain in 2 hours and 18 inches of pea-sized hail to much of Los Angeles. There were many power outages due to the numerous lightening strikes to the electrical distribution system.

For local Fargo weather, be sure to tune in to KVXL-FM 94.3 on your dial or the webcast on Friday nights.

>>> Phil
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-13-2003, 02:33 PM:
 
So, um, Phil, why didn't you upload a picture of said pea-sized hail? Look at the thread title! Geez!

(Sorry...just stirring the pot.)

 -
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 11-13-2003, 02:58 PM:
 
OK Mr. Picture Police Scott. This is the size I was referring to. I know it's only a sample, but since I'm sure you know how big 6" is, just multiply that by 3 and you will get the image in your mind's eye as to how deep the "snow" was here. [Razz]

OBTW: I see NO pic in YOUR bitchin' post! [evil]

>>> Phil

 -
 
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 11-13-2003, 03:04 PM:
 
Ya, old coot! Are you that blind that you can't see the picture of the rain and snow in Boston, in Scott's post?
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 11-13-2003, 03:07 PM:
 
Oh sure Daryl, go back and edit his post so I look stupit. I don't need your help for that! [Big Grin]

>>> Phil
 
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 11-13-2003, 05:02 PM:
 
From the LA Times. The areas of Watt and Compton were hardest hit by the hailstorm. That's HAIL, not snow.

 -
 
Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 11-13-2003, 11:43 PM:
 
Adam,

You say that's HAIL?

D-A-M-N.......

First it was half the state burning down (which, to some, wouldn't be a bad thing - as long as it took some liberals with it [Eek!] ), now it's 5" of rain in an HOUR, now this...

The fact that the seasons are blending into one of the same makes me wonder.... [uhoh]
 
Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 11-14-2003, 04:00 AM:
 
Does anyone have a close up pic of a car that was in the hail storm? Those cars look liek the windshields are arent shattered, seems lik they would be busted with that much hail.
 
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 11-14-2003, 04:18 AM:
 
It was pea-sized hail. Not big enough to do a lot of damage.
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 12-12-2003, 10:42 PM:
 
For Michael....

Lulu wants to meet you...

>>> Phil

 -
 
Posted by Dan Lyons (Member # 1454) on 12-13-2003, 04:15 AM:
 
jesus Phil!!! I hope your parrot eats that nasty old bug!! [Big Grin]

Danny
 
Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 12-13-2003, 03:29 PM:
 
I think it's hillarious when ONE person mentions the weather, SEVERAL OTHER people have to chime in with what the weather is like there. Whether it be in chat, posts, or real-life conversation.

Here, it's partly cloudy with a chance of DOOM!

=TMP=
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 12-13-2003, 03:49 PM:
 
Yeah I know what you mean, Tom. [beer]

Here in Hollywood it's a pleasent 73 degrees. Clear skies. The humididy is 32% and the winds are currently out of the SSE at 3 MPH gusting to 9. The barometric pressure is 30.18 and falling.

Rain is forcast for tomorrow with a high of 62 and a low of 45 tonight.

It's nice to "see" snow in the local mountains.

>>> Phil
 
Posted by David Favel (Member # 1125) on 12-13-2003, 07:08 PM:
 
Thats nothing. 32 degrees Celcius. Beautiful day, want to be in my back yard with a cool beer & a hot wife.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-13-2003, 08:57 PM:
 
The weather here rocks! Here we have meteorites with a 69% chance of 4 foot blizzard.
 
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 12-13-2003, 10:23 PM:
 
METAR KLAS 140356Z 26004KT 10SM SCT250 07/04 A3017 RMK AO2 SLP223 T00670044 $

For those unfortunates that can't read the above, it says "Aviation Meteorological Report for Las Vegas, NV on the 14th at 0356 UTC (7:56pm PST), wind from 260 degrees at 4 knots, prevailing visibility 10 statute miles, scattered clouds with bases at 25,000', temperature 7 degrees Celcius (45degF), dewpoint 4 degrees Celcius (39degF), barometric pressure 30.17 inches of Mercury. Remarks: Automated observation with precipitation descriminator, sea level barometric pressure 1022.3 hectoPascals (millibars), temperature 6.7degC, dewpoint 4.4degC, equipment needs maintenance." [Big Grin]

 -
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 12-13-2003, 10:57 PM:
 
Ummmm, David, put that into F so us dumb Americans can understand it WITHOUT having to go to the formulas!

Thanks!

>>> Phil
 
Posted by David Favel (Member # 1125) on 12-14-2003, 12:20 AM:
 
It's really not that hot,
32 Celsius =
89.6 degrees Fahrenheit (oF)
305.1kelvin (K)
25.6degrees Reaumur (oR)
549.3rankine
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-14-2003, 12:24 AM:
 
Hmmmmm, I wonder who this could be? [Big Grin]

5 second Quicktime clip
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 12-14-2003, 01:45 AM:
 
Why, it's America's only nationally televised film projectionist. As mentioned here.

Still waiting for them to deliver my fan mail. By now I should have groupies.
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 12-14-2003, 07:11 AM:
 
How much did Strong pay for that product placement? [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 12-14-2003, 10:49 AM:
 
Well Scott, the Blue Star doesn't cost you money. It earns you money!
 
Posted by Sean M. Grimes (Member # 445) on 12-16-2003, 02:21 AM:
 
Just because tomorrow is the one year anniversary of it's closing, a picture from my first theater's booth bathroom. egghh [puke]
 -
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 12-16-2003, 02:32 AM:
 
Hey Sean, Nice "Flush-Master".... [beer]

>>> Phil
 
Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 12-16-2003, 07:00 AM:
 
Graumann's Metropolitan & Million Dollar theatres in LA were unusual in that the interior finish & decoration were not plaster, but ALL CAST CONCRETE.

PROCRASTINATION, "THE SPIRIT OF THE BUILDING"
METROPOLITAN THEATRE, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA

This fantastic ornament, which was designed by the architect [William Lee Woollett] and cast in concrete, has the body of a glorified garden slug.

 -

It must have been a hell of a job knocking down the Metropolitan, but I bet knowing this thing was going with it made it easier.
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 12-21-2003, 11:29 AM:
 
 -

Today's image comes to us from Post Magazine (December 2003 print version) and an article about Soundelux London. I've worked in post production and I don't recall having a split reel or flange labeled like the one on the left most Magna Tech dubber. Do you suppose the machine room operators are playing Wheel of Fortune?
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 12-24-2003, 01:30 AM:
 
Pic 4 2day: From "Those Crazy Kids" ...a segment I shot on 16mm when I was 19 for Wide World Of Sports. Ummmm... way back when.... [Wink]

 -

>>> Phil

[ 12-24-2003, 02:57 AM: Message edited by: Phil Hill ]
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 12-29-2003, 03:56 AM:
 
Pic 4 2day:

 -
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-29-2003, 08:04 AM:
 
Guarding Tess rocks. Best movie EVER!!!!!!!!!!! NicolASS Cage at his most intense. I'd install a brand new booth for it. My favorite scene is the one with Tess in it and NicholASS Cage must guard her. F*cking rocks!!!!!!
 
Posted by Paul Cassidy (Member # 951) on 12-29-2003, 08:32 AM:
 
Yeah I liked "Gardening with Tess" as well , but I think Mr Cage was much better in "It Could Happen to You" [puke]
 
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 12-29-2003, 08:44 AM:
 
For me, it's impossible to erase the picture of Nicolas Cage in Raising Arazona from my mind.

It's the same thing as Sean Penn, who will always be "Spicoli" and Keannu Reeves who will never live down the image of "Bill and Ted", no matter how many sequels of The Matrix he ever does.
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 01-06-2004, 07:35 PM:
 
Signs at Walmart checkouts (recreated from memory)

 -

Looks like the new millenium will be plagued by unnecessary apostrophes.
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-07-2004, 08:35 AM:
 
Punctuation is important. Would you write:

"A panda eats shoots and leaves"

or

"A panda eats, shoots, and leaves"? [Big Grin]

http://faculty.whatcom.ctc.edu/kdalen/handouts/fun.htm

quote:
A panda goes into a bar and says, "Give me a beer and a sandwich."
After he finishes his meal, he pulls out his six-shooter, shoots up the bar, and makes a quick exit.
The proprietor runs after him yelling, "Why did you do that?"
The panda responds, "Because that's what pandas do. If you don't believe me look it up in the dictionary."
Later that night the proprietor looks "panda" up in the dictionary. It said:

panda (pan da), n., pl. -das. 1. A white-and-black bearlike mammal native to central China. A panda eats shoots and leaves. 2. A reddish brown, racoonlike mammal of the Himalayas.

A panda eats shoots and leaves?
or
A panda eats, shoots, and leaves


http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/12/15/161411.php

quote:
"Eats, Shoots and Leaves"

This new book, subtitled "The Zero-Tolerance Approach to Punctuation," has become an instant best-seller in England. Its author is Lynne Truss, a London theater critic and columnist whose zeal for proper punctuation is tempered by a wry sense of humor.

The title derives from one of the book's numerous jokes. A panda goes into a bar, orders a sandwich, fires a gun and heads for the door. Why did he do that? The barman calls after him. The panda tosses him a badly punctuated wildlife manual. "I'm a panda," he says. "Look me up." The barman finds the relevant page, which says, "Panda. Large black-and-white, bearlike mammal native of China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

Truss calls semicolons and colons "old-fashioned, middle-class, and dangerously addictive," and says exclamation points are "like laughing at your own jokes." Ouch! I use far too many of these, and will henceforth try to cease and desist whenever possible.

She also notes that "Gertrude Stein called the comma servile and refused to have anything to do with it." Memo, to self: fewer commas, please!

You can order the book from amazon.uk now, or wait 'til next year when it's published in the U.S.: Truss has received a $110,000 advance! Oops, there I go again!



 
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 01-07-2004, 08:50 AM:
 
This is one of my favorite subjects. Sounds like a good one, thanks for the link.

I also like William Brohaugh's "Write Tight", and William Zinsser's "On Writing Well".

IMHO, it's a subject woefully absent from academia today.
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 01-09-2004, 04:02 PM:
 
 -

>>> Phil
 
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 01-09-2004, 06:01 PM:
 
Okay phil i wan't one of those
 
Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 01-09-2004, 07:42 PM:
 
CFI-"Consolidated Film Industries" made those strips also.
 
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 01-09-2004, 10:13 PM:
 
Where's the 10p?
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 01-09-2004, 10:38 PM:
 
10p is a waste! What is there? 2 systems in the world that use that with about 3-1/2 installations? All special venue and German "car" advertisements?

Cut me a break!

If you have such a hard-on for 10p...post the "donut". I have samples... [Smile]

OBTW: CFI did have something "similar", but they sure the hell didn't have that as I posted. Those were frames from copyrighted Iwerks produced films. I was there and did 'em...along with other Iwerks "troops".

>>> Phil
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-10-2004, 02:43 AM:
 
The most recent thing I shot was in 24p! [Razz]
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 01-10-2004, 02:08 PM:
 
Spoken as a true video geek! [beer]

>>> Phil
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-10-2004, 03:40 PM:
 
I've only shot 16mm 1P. I feel so...small.

To make up for it, I've been shooting stills on 4x5. This one was taken on December 27, when it was a lot warmer than it is today.

 -
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-10-2004, 03:54 PM:
 
How many p is that picture Scott?
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-10-2004, 03:58 PM:
 
Zero P. 4x5 film comes in sheets and doesn't have Ps. Actually, 120-size rollfilm doesn't have Ps, either.

On the other hand, that negative has about 200 megapixels worth of information on it.
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 01-10-2004, 04:10 PM:
 
All this talk about P's makes me wanna pee.

Great pic Scott! [beer]

(I would have said "Great, Scott", but then I'm sure someone would have said "Brad", then "Janet", then "Rocky", "Dr. Scott", "Brad", etc.)

>>> Phil
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-10-2004, 04:21 PM:
 
Scott, I do not like the way you framed your picture and I'm afraid you'll have to retake it. The horizon is just a smidgen too low (about 1 or 2 pixels if that image is 200 megapixels).

I expect to see the new pic later today.
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-10-2004, 04:24 PM:
 
I recropped it Joe. You're right, that really does make an incredible difference! [thumbsup]

 -
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 01-10-2004, 04:29 PM:
 
quote:
I've only shot 16mm 1P. I feel so...small.
Don't feel bad, Scott. Size doesn't matter! It's how you use it. [beer]

>>> Phil
 
Posted by Per Hauberg (Member # 529) on 01-10-2004, 07:45 PM:
 
quote:
Size doesn't matter!
Size Matters, according to Godzilla

And size does matter - That's why I never get anything !

p.

 -

Photo: Local gimmick - Film-interpretation for deaf children, running
this way in Malling Bio six times a year: Two interpreters stand behind
audience with videocamera and are projected to the small screen on the
side. Together with the wire loop for hearing impaired this gives movie
experiences to kids, who would otherwise not have this pleasure.
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 01-10-2004, 08:44 PM:
 
Next pic 4 2day: Hang on Sloopy!

 -

>>> Phil
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-10-2004, 09:51 PM:
 
Memo to self: buy stock in whatever company makes that trailer hitch. Phil has the perfect promo shot for them.
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 01-10-2004, 10:33 PM:
 
Scott, I think the company was "Balls R Us" or "We Have Balls". [beer]

>>> Phil
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-10-2004, 10:36 PM:
 
Is that, by chance, a REGAL boat?
 
Posted by Per Hauberg (Member # 529) on 01-11-2004, 04:53 AM:
 
Now just put the boat in "reverse" and whoops ! - No trouble...

Every car should have one.
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 01-11-2004, 09:26 PM:
 
Pic 4 2day: Oh Dear!

 -

>>> Phil
 
Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 01-16-2004, 02:19 AM:
 
 -

Little problem with metal fatigue & an Austin Healey fan blade on the way to the car show.

You don't stop except if it blows up or to pick up something if it falls off; and of course nothing technically "fell off".
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-16-2004, 08:35 AM:
 
Did that deer fall out of a tree or something? There is no damage at all to the front end yet massive damage to the top o fthe vehicle. What the hell? Photoshop?
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 01-16-2004, 11:46 AM:
 
Joe: Look Here.

>>> Phil
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-16-2004, 08:41 PM:
 
Well that's what he gets for driving a Dodge (or any American car).
 
Posted by Travis Hubrig (Member # 1745) on 01-16-2004, 09:43 PM:
 
Joe, Why would the deer be in a tree?
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 01-16-2004, 10:29 PM:
 
Travis, hiding from a bear...why else? JEEEZE! [Razz]

>>> Phil
 
Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 01-16-2004, 11:45 PM:
 
That is so gross. [Frown]
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 01-17-2004, 02:42 PM:
 
Pic 4 2day: Neon Betty.

 -


>>> Phil
 
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 01-17-2004, 07:13 PM:
 
The front of a Durango isn't really all that high. The deer probably tried to jump over the vehicle.
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-17-2004, 07:25 PM:
 
I was in my recently new Dodge pickup(alot higher than a Durango) driving down I-90 south of Baraboo, WI about 9 years ago and a Deer jumped right in front of me...got me in the left front. For a couple of seconds the deer and I were able to look each other right in the eye as his head came right up to the glass of my windshield. It fell away by the time I realized what had hit me. Looking in my rear view mirror I saw the guy behind me drive right over the top of it. I kept going till the next exit and got out to look at the truck. The whole side was totaled!

Mark @ CLACO
 
Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 01-21-2004, 03:05 PM:
 
Anyone seen Rachel lately? It looks like she's going for the idle time record on AIM!


 -
 
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 01-21-2004, 03:48 PM:
 
Mike --

You're surfing Film-Tech using Safari? [puke]

The constant "No Bookmarking" pages don't freak you out?
 
Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 01-21-2004, 03:55 PM:
 
I just click the links at the top to go back. The error only hapens when you use the back buttons.

Film-Tech Forums » Film-Yak » Upload your forum pictures

Yes. I hate IE that much.

edit: 200h 4m

[ 01-21-2004, 08:15 PM: Message edited by: Mike Olpin ]
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-21-2004, 08:18 PM:
 
Why not use Mozilla Firebird instead of Safari? You can still hate IE, but you get to hate Safari as well because it sux0rz in comparison to Mozilla Firebird and/or even Camino.
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-25-2004, 12:35 AM:
 
Why don't they build multiplexes that look like this?

(Side note: this was my first attempt at developing sheet film in my bathtub and also an early attempt at making contact prints with a night light bulb. It actually looks pretty good, despite the crappy scan.)

(Side note #2: Joe's right...Mozilla rocks!)

 -
 
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 01-25-2004, 02:14 AM:
 
Scott, that's cool! Nice work.
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-25-2004, 12:57 PM:
 
Really nice shot! Can you give us some details? Use of Zone System?, type of camera, lens, film, type of developer etc. Can't say I ever processed sheet film in my tub. If you do this on a reglar basis you ought to try to find some cheap plastic 8X10 trays!! The Fixer residue might be a tad harsh on your tushy down the road [Eek!] .

Mark
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-25-2004, 02:22 PM:
 
The theatre was the former Majestic Theatre in Providence, RI. It's now used for live performances. I've never been inside.

For those who care:

TXP 320 exposed at f/16 1/500th; I used a normal incident light meter (cheap Luna Pro knockoff); Super Speed Graphic camera with standard 135mm Optar lens. Slight front rise. Taken January 1, 2004.

Developed in D-76 for ~8 minutes.

The print was made using a 7 1/2 watt nightlight bulb in a reflector worklight with the reflector spray-painted black. The exposure time for the paper was about 10 seconds. The paper was Polymax II RC, which I mistakenly bought in matte finish (which is why the scan doesn't look very sharp). Print was developed in Dektol for ~2 minutes.

I'll have a good 8x10 print made someday (I don't have space for a 4x5 enlarger here). This was done mostly as an experiment. The print looks slightly underexposed (due somewhat uneven illumination when printing), but the negative is fine.

Here's another shot done basically the same way; this is the BU Bridge in Boston, taken on 12/27/2003. Same camera/lens/film with slight front rise (not enough,actually). f/32 1/30.

 -

[ 01-26-2004, 11:41 AM: Message edited by: Scott Norwood ]
 
Posted by Ian Bailey (Member # 1752) on 01-25-2004, 06:49 PM:
 
View from my deck!  -
 
Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 01-25-2004, 07:36 PM:
 
Jesus that's lovely. [thumbsup]
Probably infested with mosquitoes and crocodiles though.
[uhoh]
 
Posted by Chris Markiewicz (Member # 1415) on 01-25-2004, 07:56 PM:
 
 -
Taken yesterday morning on the way to work, halfway to Kona looking south. That thunderhead is sitting just offshore from Kona airport. We've been having thunder- and electrical storms the last few days; driving home last night through the lightning was no fun at all [uhoh]
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 01-25-2004, 10:29 PM:
 
Scott: D76 or D76 1:1 ?
 
Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 01-25-2004, 11:52 PM:
 
I'm here Mike, just not on AIM! [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 01-26-2004, 01:28 AM:
 
 -

2003/11/21 6:49PM F4.0 1/333

I got bored, but was still too lazy to use film.
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-26-2004, 07:11 AM:
 
Ian -- nice view!

Steve -- it was full-strength D-76.

Rachel -- are you being anti-social? [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Juan Urias (Member # 1990) on 01-26-2004, 11:54 AM:
 
testing

guess i couldn't do it.oh well...
 
Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 02-16-2004, 03:44 AM:
 
 -

Pharaonic drumline.

Marcia Ball finishes & goes off, curtain closes to set up the next band. Seven or eight people dressed like pharaohs, carrying drums, clamber up on the apron boom boom boom bang bangity bangity bang bang for easily 20 minutes while 2 more women do Walk Like An Egyptian dances go back & forth in front of them, & a guy dressed as a nubian prince appears & does interpretive dances. Then they disperse, & they can raise the curtain & put the next band on. Where they came from, who they are, nobody seems to know.
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 02-16-2004, 09:44 AM:
 
Juan, it's easy. When posting click where it says Click here to upload an image. Fill in your login name & password, then navigate around your computer to select the image to upload (read the FAQ about size limits, etc.). Click to upload. If the upload is successful you will be shown the picture as it has been uploaded (and sent back down to you). Under this will be the line of HTML which you must copy and paste into your posting to make the image appear. If you didn't get this page showing the picture and the HTML then your upload didn't work. If you got that far but the picture doesn't come up in your post then you did something wrong insofar as copying and pasting that line.
 
Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 02-16-2004, 10:18 AM:
 
Scott, I'm always anti-social.
 
Posted by Travis Hubrig (Member # 1745) on 02-16-2004, 01:18 PM:
 
 -
 
Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 02-16-2004, 01:55 PM:
 
[Big Grin] aww that's so cute!!!
 
Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 02-18-2004, 07:48 AM:
 
The mugshot exclusive you'll only see here....

Anyone wanna take a guess at who it is?

Film-Tech'er Found here
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 02-18-2004, 09:38 AM:
 
Oh, you must be very proud, Travis! A girl saw you with your pants down and was induced to say aww that's so cute!!!
 
Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 02-18-2004, 12:00 PM:
 
quote:
aww that's so cute!!!
In a very sick disgusting sort of way...
 
Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 02-18-2004, 12:15 PM:
 
I was talking about the cat... There is a cat there right? I'm not just seeing things, right? [eyes]
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 02-18-2004, 01:33 PM:
 
I was hoping to avoid the issue of seeing a pussy where you least expect one. [evil]
 
Posted by Travis Hubrig (Member # 1745) on 02-18-2004, 02:27 PM:
 
If I didn't have a cat, the ladies would run!

No, it's not me. My 'CAT' is much bigger.
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-24-2004, 10:31 PM:
 
This is not political. But here are some candid photos I took of Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards during a rally in Rochester on Sunday night:

Digital photo taken with Kodak DX3700 from about 15 feet, on-camera flash, handheld:

 -

Photo taken with Kodak MAX 800 film, Minolta X-370s SLR, 135mm lens, f/2.8, available light, handheld:

 -
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-25-2004, 12:01 AM:
 
Hmmmm. Kind of grainy. Maybe I should get that Fuji camera instead. [Razz]
 
Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 02-25-2004, 12:31 AM:
 
What are you doing to your pictures, John Pytlak?

That picture of the Pharaonic Drumline was handheld taken with Max 800, & it's not the hell of grain yours are. Other pictures taken with more detail & light don't look like that either. And those are taken with the I-love-a-party-&-a-funky-old-auditorim Ricoh rock-n-roll camera, not the Nikon. Some goofy ProMaster 28mm-75mmish zoom.

I had been running 400 ASA taking theater pictures (AKA 'taking pictures in the dark') & just tried the 800 to see what happened, & was very pleasantly surprised. If they looked like yours, I'd go back to the 400 ASA or use a pinhole!

I hope the difference is not that I got Kodak processing & you didn't.

I chalk up the increased camera shake in your picture to never having acquired the 60 foot vertical ladder vise grip.
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 02-25-2004, 12:33 AM:
 
Looks like an enlargement of a very small segment of negative.
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-25-2004, 05:52 AM:
 
quote:
Looks like an enlargement of a very small segment of negative.

Yes, only about 1/4 of the whole image area. Plus it was tungsten available light (Kodak MAX 800 is daylight balance), and there was about 1 stop underexposure. I estimate the shutter speed was only about 1/30 second. John Edwards is a dynamic speaker and moved around quite a bit, so holding focus and avoiding motion blur were issues.
 
Posted by Travis Hubrig (Member # 1745) on 02-25-2004, 09:04 PM:
 
I can't vote for a guy that looks like Jack Tripper! (RIP) [Razz]

Just kidding, I wasn't making a political comment... please don't ban me!!!
 
Posted by David Favel (Member # 1125) on 02-25-2004, 09:09 PM:
 
Ya can't trust a man who lived with 2 cute chicks for that long without boinking at least 1 of them.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-26-2004, 12:37 AM:
 
Travis=BANNED!
David=BANNED!

And just for good measure:
Ken Lackner=BANNED!
 
Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 02-26-2004, 02:10 AM:
 
I still can't blast that kind of grain out of my MAX 800 pictures, even enlarged. Is the difference that yours was "underexposed" & processing the prints blew all the grain out? Most of mine are "overexposed" by about 2 stops because of the dark environment & light shining directly into the lens. It's all sort of meaningless when exposures are per situation, but probably the only useful relative terminology.

 -

Picture taken at the Order Of Myths parade Tuesday night by my friend Mike with his Kodak digital DXSomethingorother. For kicks, he tried one without the flash, & it apparently focused right in the center & with the 'aperture' wide open had near zero depth of field. It didn't look this good; it's been sharpened like bejeezus. It's a "hey I know what you can make with that" doodad you found type of thing.
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-26-2004, 02:29 AM:
 
quote:
I estimate the shutter speed was only about 1/30 second.
You can hand-hold at 1/30 without camera shake?! Anything slower than 1/125 and I need a tripod.

The JPEG compression on this scan probably isn't helping the grain, either.
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-26-2004, 05:48 AM:
 
The general rule of thumb for camera shake is to use a shutter speed faster than the reciprical of the lens focal length in millimeters, so for a 135mm telephoto lens, 1/125 second or faster would be recommended. The photo of Edwards certainly has a bit of camera shake and motion blur, plus the shallow depth of focus at f/2.8. But it works well as a candid, as I like the expression and composition. Grain increases with underexposure, and this negative was fairly "thin".

Lots of compression too, as that fairly large photo was less than 100 kilobytes to meet the Film-Tech posting requirements.
 
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 02-26-2004, 05:55 AM:
 
William - it`s really kind of funny, somebody who seems to know as much about photography as you, and who has enough perseverance to post here nearly 1k times, yet still you haven`t sent in a member picture! I understand not everybody is as blessed with good looks as I am, still you should send in a picture so we all can see what you look like. It`s not a matter of rules, it`s just a matter of style...It`s just so much more fun when you see who you are talking to, it`s just the style of this website.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-26-2004, 01:07 PM:
 
Yeah William! You can't look any worse than Michael! You have nothing to lose. Don't be paranoid!

PS - They're after you.
 
Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 02-26-2004, 06:08 PM:
 
OK, I have to try this picture posting thing too.

 -

That is a DTS reader rigged onto a Holmes 8.
Now if I can get a picture of me, you would see it on the left.
 
Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 02-27-2004, 01:18 AM:
 
We are not allowed to discuss the details or activities of our organization. But I would like to say, because there will be talk & speculation, that at the last meeting Bill Bright, Bill Enos, Bill Gabel & I argued strongly & voted against sending the Black Spot on to William T. Parr.
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-27-2004, 03:50 PM:
 
 -

The view from my office window this afternoon. Needless to say, an inch or two of white shite was all the excuse the train people needed to crawl home at a speed Stephenson's Rocket could have beaten, thereby causing an hour's delay.
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-09-2004, 11:02 AM:
 
In my younger days, I got to hold both Oscar (TM) and Emmy (TM) when I worked on a Kodak project team that won both. [Cool]

 -

(No, they're not displayed in my office, but my more recent Academy Technical Achievement Award for Developing the Laboratory Aim Density (LAD) System sure is!)
 
Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 04-09-2004, 02:21 AM:
 
Scott Norwood mentioned in Ground Level that he enjoyed program calendars. The Roxy in Forsyth must have been much closer to first run than most theaters. This one's from the Alamo in Jackson, MS - 4 or 5 theatres in the city in 1969, & a couple of nearby drive-ins. The Alamo was/is located in the predominantly black section of the city, & dates back to the silents days when it was a "colored" theatre. At one point, it was closed, & the "New Alamo" (also a "colored" theatre) was built closer to town, but business was so good they re-opened the Old Alamo as well. By 1969, the New Alamo had run its course & was closed (it no longer survives) & the Old Alamo was the Alamo Theatre again. It ran very sub-run & exploitation stuff, just above the level of drive-in:

 -

Woo hoo! The newest Hollywood movies, In Like Flint & Custer of the West, have only been out for 2 years! Excellent exploitation flicks: Seven Daring Girls, Teenage Mother, White Lightnin' Road (Fast Cars! Fast Women!), & Girl From Tobacco Row (Tex Ritter!)

Biker flicks! Ghidra! A Hercules movie! Prehistoric Women!

Marquees used to be a whole lot more fun to look at.
 
Posted by Richard Greco (Member # 2032) on 04-21-2004, 08:18 AM:
 
 -

Let's see some cool photoshopped stuff
 
Posted by German Marin (Member # 918) on 04-21-2004, 03:09 PM:
 
This is real. Saint Maarten airport.  -
 
Posted by Floyd Justin Newton (Member # 1316) on 04-21-2004, 03:12 PM:
 
Doubt it. [Wink]

fjn

local 294 Ret,
 
Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 04-21-2004, 03:37 PM:
 
That is St. Maarten airport...there is a twin cinema near the runway to this airport, with giant 18 foot wall to wall screens..nice guy but a cinema chain is opening a super multiplex near his spot [Confused]
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 04-21-2004, 05:18 PM:
 
"GOREGASM.COM" ????

Is that a website about the ex-VP having sex?

>>> Phil
 
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 04-21-2004, 07:53 PM:
 
Yup, that's the airport. I've been to that cinema too.
 
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 04-22-2004, 12:31 AM:
 
Yes, that is the infamous runway 09 approach at Princess Juliana Int'l Airport, St. Maarten (St. Martin), Dutch Antilles (in the Carribean for the geographically-challenged), well known to all professional pilots. An excellent place for airliner spotters that want to see their prey up close. The scenery traipsing around on the beach ain't bad either. Said scenery gets a real sand blasting every time a widebody rolls for take off on 09. The runway threshold is only about 150' from the fence, road, and Maho Beach.

 -
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 04-22-2004, 01:34 AM:
 
Let's get this thread back on topic!

 -


>>> Phil!
 
Posted by Floyd Justin Newton (Member # 1316) on 04-22-2004, 09:10 AM:
 
Phil-- You're just simply a brute!!

fjn
Local 294 Ret. [Wink]
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 04-22-2004, 09:50 AM:
 
More about the airport photography at St. Maarten:

http://anniebees.com/Photos/SpottingSaintMaarten.htm

quote:
Spotting and Photography in St. Maarten is a breeze ...

Obviously the most popular place for spotting and aviation photography is at Maho Beach, especially the Sunset Bar located on the southern side of the beach. From here you'll get some fantastic views of the aircraft landing on runway 9. You can shoot from either side of Maho Beach and you can walk right up to the fence at the end of the runway, it's only about 5 foot high, and shoot from there as well. Some have even taken shots from the upper floors of the hotel on the northern side of the beach and gotten spectacular shots.

Beware though, the tendency will be to settle in at the Sunset Bar, enjoy some food and drink while waiting for the next arrival. And, I assure you, you will do some waiting. Before I continue let's talk about the traffic you can expect.

First let me tell you that I was there during the non-peak season so the traffic was a bit lighter than you can expect during the peak season. Saturdays and Sundays were the heaviest traffic days with additional flights that only fly on weekends. But Monday to Friday did offer some nice traffic for those with patience. The highlight of each day of course was the Air France A340, followed by the American 757s, of which there were about three each day. Then once weekly there was the KLM 747 (now an MD-11 twice weekly and 747 once weekly), the Air Holland 767 and the Corsair 747. Each came once a week during the non-peak season, but I've heard are more frequent during the peak season. On Saturdays and Sundays there was the Continental 737, a US Air 757 and a Westjet 737.

After the heavies come the smaller regional airlines. A few BWIA 737s and the Dutch Caribbean
MD-82. Of course you'll get your fill of the Caribbean Star, Caribbean Sun and Liat Dash 8s.


They're like weeds at Princess Juliana along with a myriad of private aircraft that come and go during the day. There is also some cargo traffic that you might catch. I was lucky to catch a DC-3, Amerijet 727 with winglets, and a Convair CV-440, but you never know when they operate.



http://anniebees.com/Photos/AviationWelcome.htm

quote:
Welcome to our commercial aviation photography web site. Selecting a link on the bottom of this page will allow you to view hundreds of commercial aviation photos we've taken dating back to 1971. You can view the photos in thumbnail or large format and order prints if you like. You can also research many of the spotting locations we've taken pictures from at various airports and discover the
equipment we use. Enjoy!!


 
Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 04-22-2004, 01:19 PM:
 
 -
 
Posted by Chris Medley (Member # 2145) on 04-22-2004, 02:19 PM:
 
Its' jeremy as a kid....isn't that just so cute [thumbsup]
 
Posted by Trevor Bailey (Member # 75) on 04-22-2004, 11:49 PM:
 
"You deserve a promotion!"

 -

Real image...not photoshopped.
 
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 04-22-2004, 11:54 PM:
 
Wow. Look at how filthy that place is. I wish I worked there so I could use yellow tape and just chop off extra frames at breakdown time. And the chance of electrocution is a bonus!
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 04-23-2004, 12:49 AM:
 
Who said you can't melt aluminum with just 3700 watts?

 -

This venue did it twice...just to be sure the first time wasn't just a fluke.
 
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 04-23-2004, 12:55 AM:
 
1220 deg F... that's almost warm enough to heat up your dinner or explode a can of beans, right Rick?
 
Posted by Floyd Justin Newton (Member # 1316) on 04-23-2004, 08:45 AM:
 
I stand corrected!

Thank you John P.

fjn
Local 294 Ret.
 
Posted by German Marin (Member # 918) on 04-23-2004, 09:33 AM:
 
 -
 
Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 04-25-2004, 01:06 PM:
 
Adam beat me to it! By the looks of the floor and the rollers, for some reason I'm not surprised at the damage to the table port.

I could just picture two 16-year old threadjockeys talking one night after close: "Dude, I dare you to stick a paperclip into that plug on the platter!" -- "What would that do?" -- "I dunno. Probably makes the platter spin real fast or something cool. WAIT! Put a splicer on one of the decks and we'll see how far it goes..."

=TMP=
 
Posted by Sam Hunter (Member # 1119) on 05-06-2004, 07:56 PM:
 
Here is a photo taken of me during my training for working at Time Warner Cable. That pole climbing shit is bad on the knees [thumbsdown]
 -
 
Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 05-10-2004, 10:04 AM:
 
 -
 
Posted by Clint Koch (Member # 1179) on 05-10-2004, 10:46 AM:
 
Nice morph job on Heid. (sp. Heid?)
 
Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 05-10-2004, 12:05 PM:
 
Thanks! [Big Grin]

I did that about five years ago using Paint Shop Pro version 6 or 7 or whatever it was back then.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 05-26-2004, 03:53 AM:
 
I really had to reduce the image quality to get this to fit on the site. Sorry.
[av=m]
 -
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-26-2004, 11:11 AM:
 
So Joe, is that you taking the "dive"? [Wink]

Is the original in color, or is it B&W with "colorized" water? Don't worry, Ted Turner won't call on you for help with his next colorization project. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Per Hauberg (Member # 529) on 05-26-2004, 02:07 PM:
 
Now it's my turn to try this....
If I'm lucky, You'll see my screen 2 - first anno 1981, when it was opened, and second anno 2004 - just renovated.
Two pics only - that's not a tour - and then it's legal, no ?

Per

 -

 -
 
Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 05-26-2004, 02:39 PM:
 
The video of the incrdibly dumb kid can be seen in full color with sound here .
 
Posted by Emma Tomiak (Member # 1862) on 06-09-2004, 01:00 AM:
 
This fell on my driveway during a huge storm about 4 days ago.

 -

 -

Anyone else in the DFW area get this kind of damage? This is tame compared with some of the damage sustained by others in my neighborhood.
 
Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 06-09-2004, 01:08 AM:
 
The storm dropped a guy with an umbrella in your driveway?

Sometimes they get cows through roofs or boats in trees during hurricanes & tornadoes down here, but never any airborne people that I can recall.
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 06-09-2004, 01:47 AM:
 
William: Hahahahaa! That's too funny, bub! Your're cracking me up here!

(With apologies to Emma)

>>> Phil
 
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 06-09-2004, 02:17 AM:
 
A thunderstorm in Houston tonight made my flight from Orange County to Sacramento an hour and a half late. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Emma Tomiak (Member # 1862) on 06-09-2004, 02:17 AM:
 
Hehehe, it's all good. Well, not all good. Another branch about that size fell on the roof on the other side of the house, on to my skylight.

It cracked the seal when it fell. Everyone was in the living room watching the weather reports, and my boyfriend (the umbrella guy in the picture) went through my room to use my bathroom. He ran back out into the living room to announce that there was water all over my floor and the skylight was leaking.
The next morning I had to go up on the roof with a chainsaw to cut the branch apart, and then duct tape the skylight seal shut as a temporary fix.

Stupid skylight. Stupid branch. [Mad]
 
Posted by Scott D. Neff (Member # 185) on 06-09-2004, 09:31 PM:
 
While Adam was waiting for his flight -- mine flew safely up the California coast to Oakland, with only about 25 people on board.

Weiwd.
 
Posted by David Favel (Member # 1125) on 06-09-2004, 11:20 PM:
 
"He ran back out into the living room to announce that there was water all over my floor"

Yea, my aim sucks too.
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 06-10-2004, 01:37 AM:
 
Last autumn a very large apple tree near the bottom of my back garden which had been there since at least 1872 (a photo exists of the house taken from the rear, showing the tree in the foreground, already fully grown, taken in that year) suddenly keeled over onto the driveway. It later turned out that building work next door had disturbed its roots. It was a good job that this happened in the middle of the night and that no humans or cars were underneath it at the time, as there was no warning whatsoever and no abnormal weather (e.g. rain, high wind, or anything like that).

No doubt Joe would argue that this serves me right for supporing the royalists in the English Civil War(Charles I stayed here during the siege of York in 1642, shortly after the place was built)...
 
Posted by Richard Greco (Member # 2032) on 06-11-2004, 11:04 PM:
 
nevermind, didnt work
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 06-20-2004, 09:01 PM:
 
 -

Illinois Central 2-4-4RT commuter tank engine (Rogers, 1880). Used until the 1926 suburban line electrification. Casey Jones is said to have used this engine when he ran commuter trains during the 1893 World's Fair. Now at Illinois Railway Museum.

Just for Scott N. I didn't crop out the 50's vintage MBTA Budd RDC car (ex-C&NW) behind it.
 
Posted by Dominic Espinosa (Member # 2122) on 06-21-2004, 11:35 AM:
 
 -

Me at the Carson City Railroad Museum in Carson City, NV.
The fine piece of machinery I'm standing next to is ... um...
I don't really remember who built it. But it's old and very cool looking...
 
Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 06-21-2004, 03:34 PM:
 
YAY! Now brad can crop that photo and Dominic will have a FORUM PHOTO!

w00t

=TMP=
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 06-21-2004, 08:36 PM:
 
 -

Here's a bit more light on the subject(s).

Engine is Virginia & Truckee 4-4-0 #18 (Central Pacific Sacramento Shops, 1873) aka "Dayton." A good choice to have on this site since from 1938 to 1978 it was owned by Paramount Pictures (from 1969 to 1978 it was leased to the National Park Service which displayed it at the Promontory Golden Spike Site in Utah). 50 years in da movie biz...just like Phil.
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 06-21-2004, 08:57 PM:
 
That T commuter rail car in Steve's photo looks remarkably like the current ones (not the double-deckers, however). Was that same paint scheme in use in the 1950s?
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 06-21-2004, 11:47 PM:
 
No, I'm sure MBTA's history is shorter than that. But the RDC's (Rail Diesel Car, a self propelled car with underfloor engines) were running there into the 1980's. A bunch of them were converted to unpowered coaches and push-pull control cars. In the early 90's those were sold to Virginia Railway Express to run out of DC. IRM's car is still intact with the engines (though doesn't run -- yet). It was originally built for the Chicago & North Western and is supposed to be one of the first built. There are still a few running here and there. Their most visible feature, besides being a basic stainless steel fluted-side car, is a hump on the roof where the radiators are.
 
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 07-12-2004, 08:01 PM:
 
Froot Loops & Bendin' Buddies! Obviously, a winning combination.

 -
 
Posted by Richard Greco (Member # 2032) on 07-12-2004, 08:30 PM:
 
Since I'm not there anymore, I don't see any problems in posting these.

My former platter:

 -

My former projector:

 -

My former DTS rack: Yes that is film on the floor on the bottom right. A preview I believe.

 -

Tell me what you all think of the equipment I was using
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 07-12-2004, 08:47 PM:
 
Yes Manny, I get it. LOL

Richard, before everyone jumps in and decries the equipment as subpar, we know the lamp is capable of lighting a screen and we know the projector is capable of putting a picture on it. My experience with your platter is limited and I found a lot not to like but in general it was capable of paying out and taking up film mostly without scratching. That leaves the lenses. As for sound, well, if you're in DTS most of the time then we need not worry about the Smart's A chain and processing only the EQ. Amps are what most people are using. Dunno about the speakers. Overall if all is well you ought to be able to put on a fairly decent show maybe not the best but far from the worst.
 
Posted by Adam Wilbert (Member # 1184) on 07-12-2004, 08:50 PM:
 
...well, at least you used a coke cup to keep dust off the lenses.

-adam
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 07-12-2004, 08:51 PM:
 
What the hell happened to that poor lamphouse? [Confused] It looks like it was salvaged from the bottom of the ocean.

I hate it when people abuse good equipment (not saying that _you_ were responsible for any of thing...just that it's sad to see when it happens). [Frown]

At least the sound rack looks like a more-or-less quality installation, even if the SMART box isn't the greatest processor.

What happened to the front cover of the wire trough? [Confused]
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-12-2004, 09:22 PM:
 
Manny, note the "Bending buddies" are relatives. That makes it all the more wrong.

Richard, did your theater not approve of keeping payout arms on each brain? Did you actually have to swap that part between shows?
 
Posted by Richard Greco (Member # 2032) on 07-12-2004, 09:48 PM:
 
actually, Brad. There are payout arms on each brain. some have white plastic, some have black plastic.
 
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 07-13-2004, 10:01 AM:
 
The unit probably isn't level and the payout arm is stuck under the angled roller on the upper two decks, registering full-blast the instant it's placed in payout mode. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Dan Lyons (Member # 1454) on 07-13-2004, 01:59 PM:
 
Hopefully the inside of the projector doesn't look like the outside of that lamp! I LOVE a CENTURY! [thumbsup]

danny
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 07-13-2004, 03:04 PM:
 
I don't get it, Manny. Please explain it to this dumbass.

Thanks!

>>> Phil
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 07-13-2004, 11:28 PM:
 
I get scared when I see Phil as last poster in this thread...never know what he may have put here. There are some things I'd rather not see.
 
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 07-14-2004, 10:16 AM:
 
And yet somehow, Steve can't resist checking in!

Brad: There are the relatives...and then there's the ALIEN FRUIT MONSTER!

Note that this is a "Mail-In" (male in?) offer.

Really now. To think that this is from Kellogg's. Did you know that dear old Dr. Kellogg has been credited (at least partially) with convincing American doctors to adopt de rigeur circumcision because he believed it would eliminate masturbation? (Gee, was he ever wrong about THAT!?)
 
Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 07-14-2004, 10:27 AM:
 
Well regardless of who makes them, I bet their GGGRRREEAAT!! [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 07-14-2004, 10:33 AM:
 
Jeremy, are you talking about the Buddies or the Loops? [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 07-14-2004, 01:05 PM:
 
Ummm, Kellogg's Corn Flakes are GREEAAAAT! Not Fruit Loops.

You know, Tony The Tiger.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-14-2004, 01:12 PM:
 
No.... It's Frosted Flakes that are GRRRRRREAT!

Difference is the sugar coating. (They used to call them "Sugar Frosted Flakes" but that was before Sugar was a BAD BAD THING, so to solve the problem they removed "Sugar" from the name.)
 
Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 07-14-2004, 01:13 PM:
 
HA! You're both wrong! Frosted Flakes ar Grrrrrrrreat!

Corn flakes has the green rooter thing.

<edit: Other Mike wins>
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-14-2004, 02:38 PM:
 
"Green rooter thing?" Sounds like something Phil might be interested in. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 07-14-2004, 03:14 PM:
 
Oh PULEEZE, Mike! JFC!

(Dear Diary: Yes! Tony ***IS*** a tiger!)

>>> Phil
 
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 07-14-2004, 04:07 PM:
 
I'm just posting here so that Steve Kraus doesn't get scared away by Phil's post!

Mike Olpin -- We need (Phil needs) more information on the "green rooter thing." The Corn Flakes we have here are promoting other...um...toys.
 
Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 07-14-2004, 04:26 PM:
 
OH!!! Now I get it... it was a gay joke!

Ha... ha?

=TMP=
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-14-2004, 06:46 PM:
 
Yes, Thomas. Gays and gay innuendo are downright hilarious. Take a look at top flight shows like Will and Grace and also Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. Is there anything funnier on the planet? Why no, there isn't! If you don't laugh, you are a homophobe. [av=m]
 
Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 07-14-2004, 07:33 PM:
 
SUGAR FROSTED FLAKES are the ones that are G-R-R-R-R-EAT! Tony the Tiger wouldn't lie!
 
Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 07-14-2004, 08:12 PM:
 
Tony the Tiger is teh ghey!
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-14-2004, 09:00 PM:
 
Mark, you obviously aren't a REAL Tony the Tiger fan. SUGAR is a big no-no these days, so they are just called FROSTED FLAKES (of corn) now. Even though they probably still have just as much sugar content (if not more).
 
Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 07-14-2004, 09:26 PM:
 
It took a damn TV commercial for me to realize that I was WRONG!

Sorry all.
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 07-15-2004, 12:47 PM:
 
Dad, why did you bring me to a gay steel mill?
 
Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 07-17-2004, 06:16 PM:
 
quote: Joe Redifer
If you don't laugh, you are a homophobe.
Uhoh. Then I must be a racist, a sexist, and a holocaust revisionist because I don't laugh at BET, Lifetime, and fell asleep on Schindler's List. [Razz]

But if not laughing at Will & Grace makes me a homophobe, then sign me up. Because nothing short of Abu-Ghraib prison torture will make me find that show hilarious. [puke] [dlp]

=TMP=
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-17-2004, 06:55 PM:
 
Here's a few frame grabs from some funny video I shot on the 4th of July. Well, at least I think it's funny, but it may be scary too. I'm laughing over the top-mic when it happens, so it has it's own built in laugh track.

 -
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 07-19-2004, 07:08 PM:
 
Do you have a bean? Chicago has a bean!

 -

It's actually a stainless steel sculpture called Cloud Gate but no doubt people are going to just call it The Bean and it's part of the new Millenium Park that opened late last week. Built atop railroad tracks and two parking garages it cost almost half a billion dollars. Besides the Bean, there is a new bandshell and stage, gardens, etc. and there is also this:

 -

Two fifty foot columns like this faced in glass block. Water sprays down 3 sides while the facing sides display images via thousands of LED's behind the glass. The display changes but typically they will show a face which blinks, smiles, and after a few minutes puckers up and a jet of water shoots out the nozzle right where the lips are. They can also have water run down that side as it does the other 3. The surrounding area consists of flat granite blocks forming a half inch deep pool, with a crevice to delimit the water area.

 -

 -

Girls who were dancing in the water.


Chicago Tribune Millenium Park Guide

 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-19-2004, 07:56 PM:
 
The third photo down (the man with glasses in the LED video display) made me think of 1984: Big Brother is Watching You. Or it could be Big Uncle or something like that.
 
Posted by Dan Lyons (Member # 1454) on 07-20-2004, 03:22 AM:
 
It would be fun to hack into that fountain and put up pics of people "spitting" "water" from other places.... [evil]
Phil knows what i'm talking about.

danny
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 07-20-2004, 03:26 AM:
 
I do?

Oh wait! I get it! You mean like when you take a drink of milk and then laugh so hard at something it comes out your nose...

>>> Phil
 
Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 07-20-2004, 06:25 AM:
 
We should lobby for time for a picture of a water-cooled lamphouse or gate line with a pinhole.
 
Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 07-20-2004, 09:29 AM:
 
Steve, is that over the Grant Street Parking Garage. Been years since I've been downtown. Grew up in Aurora.
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 07-20-2004, 06:02 PM:
 
Yes, Paul. They redid the Grant Park North Garage and decked over the Metra/Electric (ex-Illinois Central) for several blocks and also built a new garage to the east of the railroad. The park is atop all of that.

Years ago that was all railyards as the freight tracks went all the way up to piers and warehouses on the south edge of the Chicago River (now the site of the Illinois Center office towers and hotels). But it wasn't that many years ago when you could still find strings of surplus boxcars stored in the area where the park is now. The railroad originally was at the edge of or even in (on trestle) Lake Michigan; everything east of it now is landfill.

 -

Is this sort of LED display the new standard for large outdoor video displays? Seems that the resolution isn't bad (ignore the grid of glass blocks) and considering that this broad daylight the brightness is good too. Perhaps it would work as a drive-in screen. But would people go to a drive-in during the day?
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-20-2004, 06:08 PM:
 
Here in Montana we're in our 6th straight year of draught, so I guess I won't show those pictures to any of the farmers around here.
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 07-20-2004, 06:13 PM:
 
6th straight year of draught

6th straight year of beer?
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-20-2004, 06:54 PM:
 
Yup, that's the only relief from the heat! [Big Grin] [beer]
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-20-2004, 06:54 PM:
 
I took this picture this afternoon on I-20 in Fort Worth. It's pretty scary to think that there are TWO Jhawk's on this planet!!! [Eek!]

 -
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-20-2004, 07:15 PM:
 
quote: Steve Kraus
Is this sort of LED display the new standard for large outdoor video displays?
LED-based displays have virtually taken over the entire outdoor electronic display market. Full motion video LED displays are very expensive. You'll only find them in very high profile locations. Chicago's Millenium Park easily qualifies as such a place. Barco put together a cool LED video system for the Fashion Mall in Las Vegas. Times Square is lousy with those things. These displays are also naturals for giant shopping mall signs or signs for Indian gaming casinos.

The largest full color video LED displays are usually found in sports stadiums. There's a new display at Jacob's Field in Cleveland that is one of the largest in the world. I forget the exact size but it is somewhere in the 160' X 70' area. It and another long, skinney dislay recessed into the outfield fence cost more than $7 million.

The much more common type of LED signs are those which only display a single color, and typically much of that being text. Our company is putting up two full color LED message centers that display only text and color graphics at two bank locations in Oklahoma. Even without video content the package runs $200,000.

Considering the very high price (and not very high resolution), there is no way these things would ever be able to replace a standard film-based setup for showing movies.

Systems using 5-watt wedge based lamps are being phased out of production. The old "flipper" style systems for displaying text alone are only sold for special niche categories, like some overhead highway advisory signs. And even those are being replaced by all-LED systems. It is really getting to be a pain to provide service work for light-bulb or flipper based displays because even things like spare parts and supporting IC boards are increasingly rare.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-20-2004, 07:22 PM:
 
You're lucky you had your camera with you, Brad! And in a reachable place! I always put mine where I can't grab it quickly. Did you see the driver by chance? [av=v]

PS - You misscapitalized JhAwK's name!
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 07-20-2004, 07:23 PM:
 
J-Hawk would justify the very uncool minivan with statistical analysis.
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-20-2004, 07:27 PM:
 
I generally keep the camera in the front seat. I can't believe it came out! I had to zoom all the way in and try to hold the camera while driving, then crop a bit of the shot out so it wouldn't be too small to read the plate on the forum. I took 3 shots and all were plenty readable.

Anyone know what state that plate is from? It's certainly not a Texas plate.

Joe, the driver was just some dopey guy in his 20s. He probably reads the forums and wants to be just like the real JHawk.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-20-2004, 07:40 PM:
 
I think it might be New Mexico. Maybe... maybe Arizona.[av=k]
 
Posted by Adam Wilbert (Member # 1184) on 07-20-2004, 08:38 PM:
 
my vote is for New Mexico. Speaking of transportation, here's my chance to upload a picture of my new car!!!
 -
Right now, I'm on tank of gas #2!

-Adam
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-20-2004, 09:58 PM:
 
What year is that? Looks 70's-ish. Maybe early 80's. I dunno. [av=c] Definitely is a Pontiac, though. 1980's Pontiac.
 
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 07-20-2004, 10:03 PM:
 
LG just finished the conversion of the nine-year-old Fremont Street Experience here from halogen to LED display.

 -

The canopy runs east from Main Street down to 4th Street, about 1,500'.
Some of the new vs. old stats:

Display--12.5 million LEDs vs. 1.9 million lamps
Pixel count--4,168,704 vs. 477,664 pixels
Pixel pitch--6.5" vs. 2.0"
Resolution--7,552 x 552 vs. 2596 x 154
Power usage--2,200,000 vs. 7,833,000 Watts at full intensity
Lamp life--50,000 vs. 5,000 hours
 
Posted by Adam Wilbert (Member # 1184) on 07-21-2004, 12:56 AM:
 
good try joe. Its a 2004.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-21-2004, 01:11 AM:
 
Pontiac???? [Smile] [av=m]
 
Posted by Adam Wilbert (Member # 1184) on 07-21-2004, 01:19 AM:
 
yes. Sorry, i forgot to mention that part. It is a 2004 Pontiac Sunfire. It's Blue for those of you with amberchrome monitors still. And it's also my first manual transmission car, which has been interesting over the past few weeks. Yeah, I'm thinking about putting those spinning rims on it and some stickers. That'll make 'er diggidy.

-Adam
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-21-2004, 01:30 AM:
 
Manual transmissions rock. You are definitely more in control of your car. Also it means you can drive any type of car in an emergency. For example let's say you are out with a friend in his car, and he drives a manual transmission. Your friend breaks a leg or something while you are out and you must drive his car to get him to the hospital. If you only know how to drive an auto, your friend will most obviously die. Or say you are running from scandalous evildoers waving knives in the middle of the night. There is a car that you see that you can use for an escape. The keys are in the ignition (of course!). You get in. It's a stick. You ain't goin' nowhere! You die a very slow, violent, painful, bloody death. And like Michael Shaffer sez: Everyone gets what they deserve! [av=m]
 
Posted by Adam Wilbert (Member # 1184) on 07-21-2004, 01:41 AM:
 
That's exactly what I told the dealer. If someone is maniac is after me with a knife... Anyway, sometimes I still feel like the car is doing it's own thing, but I'm getting the hang of it. Going downhill in 2nd without having my foot on the brake is kind of strange feeling.

-adam
 
Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 07-21-2004, 04:05 AM:
 
I could never go back to an automatic. They're just not as fun to drive as sticks are.
 
Posted by Mike Pennell (Member # 1692) on 07-21-2004, 04:14 AM:
 
It's definitely not an arizona plate. [beer]
 
Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 07-21-2004, 07:50 AM:
 
Drive the 91 freeway and THEN say that stick-shifts are more fun! Automatics are really the only way to stay sane in Southern California traffic.
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-21-2004, 08:55 AM:
 
quote: Paul Mayer
Display--12.5 million LEDs vs. 1.9 million lamps
Pixel count--4,168,704 vs. 477,664 pixels
Pixel pitch--6.5" vs. 2.0"
Resolution--7,552 x 552 vs. 2596 x 154
Power usage--2,200,000 vs. 7,833,000 Watts at full intensity
Lamp life--50,000 vs. 5,000 hours

LEDs have advantages over tungsten lamps in more areas than just sound readers. [Smile] [Cool]
 
Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 07-21-2004, 09:15 AM:
 
Based on the world cinema count of 150,000 screens that should be enough LEDs to take care of 200 years of service life. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Steve Scott (Member # 630) on 07-21-2004, 02:19 PM:
 
It's a Sunfire! I own a black 2000 sunfire with spoiler, fun little car, esp. with 5-speed. Watch out for the normal Pontiac electrical [bs] I've replaced a few Oxygen sensors, and an instrument cluster.

When I bought it, my best friend nicknamed it "The Estro-gizer"
 
Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 07-22-2004, 12:22 AM:
 
Come on guys... Get a REAL ride.. [Smile]

 -

 -

 -
 
Posted by Adam Wilbert (Member # 1184) on 07-22-2004, 12:52 AM:
 
what, like that red Blazer?

[Razz]
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 07-22-2004, 01:14 AM:
 
Nice bike, Jason! [thumbsup] [beer]

That 1st pic reminds me of your new bike you were riding 2 years ago...

 -

>>> Phil
 
Posted by Dominic Espinosa (Member # 2122) on 07-22-2004, 02:23 PM:
 
There was a sighting this last week of a spider-projectionist...This is the only photograph we've found:
 -

And the other day I began questioning the ability of some to follow directions including printed paths...SpiderMan 2 in our big house was threaded like this when I came in. Just for the record, I didn't train that projectionist.
 -
 
Posted by Dan Lyons (Member # 1454) on 07-22-2004, 02:59 PM:
 
ARG!! Good thing you caught it before the show started. If that film started to run, the full feed rolls of cleaner would quickly unspool.. possibly finding there way into the projector and wrapping around a sprocket and then..... [puke]

btw: i want a spider-projectionistboy! not fair. [Wink]

danny
 
Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 07-23-2004, 12:10 AM:
 
Where are the pictures of your tonsils?
 
Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 07-23-2004, 12:19 AM:
 
quote: Dan Lyons
btw: i want a spider-projectionistboy! not fair.
I don't!! Look at how his feet are on that platter! And what's he holding on to? Hopefully not that black thing wrapped around the air duct. Shouldn't he be mopping that dirty floor?

He's probably the one who threaded that film cleaner, too. I'm not one to judge people (snicker) but he looks like an idiot from here.

If I found him in my booth, i'd fire his ass all the way back to Pleasantville so fast, he'd beat Seabiscuit. [Razz]

=TMP=
 
Posted by Dan Lyons (Member # 1454) on 07-23-2004, 03:37 AM:
 
quote: William Hooper
Where are the pictures of your tonsils?
Oh how disgusting. A very strange thing to ask. [Razz] AFAIK the doctor didn't save them in a jar or take pics of them lying on a bloody tray. [puke]

danny
 
Posted by Dominic Espinosa (Member # 2122) on 07-23-2004, 06:16 AM:
 
Actually...I'm a foot away from the platters, I was sitting on a pair of shipping crates that one print of Spidey came in.
The black thing is a couple rolling stock ads that I had my way with, and finally, the floor is like that. The contractors screwed it up pretty bad when they built it. It was actually pretty clean that day.

As for the threading, it did get run like that. The media was NOT rewound when I found it and it had been playing that way.
The picture is a staged recreation of how the GM threaded it.
Coming soon: The adventures of Xenon Boy!
 
Posted by Dan Lyons (Member # 1454) on 07-23-2004, 01:21 PM:
 
BTW, why is your cleaner BOLTED on to the bracket? It must be a bitch putting the FG on the pads with it in that position.
 
Posted by Robert L. Fischer (Member # 2424) on 07-23-2004, 01:41 PM:
 
I love it when people ask me how to thread the film cleaner. The arrows are pretty clear indicators of the film path...
 
Posted by Dominic Espinosa (Member # 2122) on 07-23-2004, 03:10 PM:
 
It's not so much bolted on as it is just screwed in with a hefty screw [Wink]

It's very easy to move. Although that one usually stays up there since the big house gets the most rotation, new prints each week usually.
 
Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 07-23-2004, 06:00 PM:
 
Perhaps I get a little delusional when I'm building a print from 38 cores, but am I the only one who finds this slightly amusing?

 -
 
Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 07-23-2004, 07:19 PM:
 
Reminds me of the "empty box" labels we would put on packing materials for ocean freight container shipment so the client and customs would know that nothing is missing or extra [Wink] Example, fully loaded audio racks in crates and "empty" amplifier boxes for wedging the crates for shipment.
 
Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 07-23-2004, 08:06 PM:
 
Phil...

One of the guys on the list claims in his signature...

"My other ride is your sister"..

LOL...

And Phil,
You need not be jealous becuase you aren't my 'bitch'. You'll always be my hero... [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 07-23-2004, 08:21 PM:
 
Well Jason, I guess since my sister died 22 years ago, your friend must be into necrophilia. While, as you know, everyone has their fetishes, that's not one of mine.

To quote a friend of mine: Sweet Jesus! [Smile]

>>> Phil
 
Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 07-23-2004, 09:28 PM:
 
quote: Richard Fowler
for wedging the crates for shipment.
That's exactly what this one was doing. Just buffering the little boxes in the big box. I just hadn't seen them labeled like that. Of course, it makes perfect sense so you're not worried about missing contents.
 
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 07-23-2004, 09:48 PM:
 
That's like my Jeppesen IFR flight navigation chart subscriptions. The back side of single-sided approach plates are printed with "This page intentionally left blank."
 
Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 07-23-2004, 10:45 PM:
 
Phil,

This wasn't directed at you personally. It's simply a signature line on someone else's tag on another forum.

Besides, necrophelia has never been a fetish of mine... although I do have them... ;-)

And, you know, you'll always be my beyyyatch.. [eyes]
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 07-25-2004, 06:41 PM:
 
That's OK, Jason. I don't care what your wife tells me, I think you are a nice guy... Honest! [Razz] [beer] [Big Grin]

>>> Phil
 
Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 07-25-2004, 08:02 PM:
 
Look who I met at Comicon!!

 -
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 07-25-2004, 08:36 PM:
 
You met Eliza Dushku?!?!?!?!

D'oh! [Wink]
 
Posted by Joshua Lott (Member # 240) on 07-25-2004, 09:15 PM:
 
 -

This is a picture from a few days ago. The haze is smoke that has been coming in and out of the area. The interior of Alaska has seen over 3 million acres burnt this summer.
 
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 07-26-2004, 05:59 PM:
 
 -
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-26-2004, 07:21 PM:
 
Good to know they deliver [Razz]
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 07-26-2004, 07:30 PM:
 
Would they split an order?
 
Posted by Kyle McEachern (Member # 2250) on 07-26-2004, 08:07 PM:
 
 -
 
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 07-26-2004, 08:12 PM:
 
 -
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 07-26-2004, 08:17 PM:
 
Ummmm... NO politcal comment:

 -



OBTW Kyle: I'm sure poor Ling Ling is now Din Din...

>>> Phil
 
Posted by Kyle McEachern (Member # 2250) on 07-26-2004, 08:51 PM:
 
 -
 
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 07-26-2004, 11:13 PM:
 
Intentional product life cycle control. Internet Explorer 1.0 is a 16 bit program first released as part of the Internet Jumpstart Kit as part of the Plus package, in July 1995, while at the same time added to the Windows 95 release package (the Plus package was on the market before the OS package due to inventory).

It was hastily released in part to get employees to stop accessing Microsoft's company webserver (conveniently located in a hallway outside someone's office) with the Netscape browser.

Version 1.0 was simply a branded version of NCSA Mosiac which would, at the time, only compile nicely as a 16 bit app. Version 2.0, released in November of 1995 was 32 bit. Since the 32 bit binary was planned before the release of the 16 bit binary version, the 1.0 (16 bit) version was intentionally programmed to only run under Windows 95.
 
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 07-26-2004, 11:21 PM:
 
I don't even want to know about this one.

 -
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-26-2004, 11:34 PM:
 
quote: Daryl C. W. O'Shea
Intentional product life cycle control. Internet Explorer 1.0 is a 16 bit program first released as part of the Internet Jumpstart Kit as part of the Plus package, in July 1995, while at the same time added to the Windows 95 release package (the Plus package was on the market before the OS package due to inventory).

It was hastily released in part to get employees to stop accessing Microsoft's company webserver (conveniently located in a hallway outside someone's office) with the Netscape browser.

Version 1.0 was simply a branded version of NCSA Mosiac which would, at the time, only compile nicely as a 16 bit app. Version 2.0, released in November of 1995 was 32 bit. Since the 32 bit binary was planned before the release of the 16 bit binary version, the 1.0 (16 bit) version was intentionally programmed to only run under Windows 95.

What is this John, no link??? [Wink]
 
Posted by Scott D. Neff (Member # 185) on 07-26-2004, 11:35 PM:
 
Man -- I wish I had my camera and some editing software so I can could be funny too.

I really need to install Photoshop on my laptop... if I still can.
 
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 07-26-2004, 11:37 PM:
 
When I figure out how to link to my brain I'll save a lot of money each year in reduced keyboard replacement costs.
 
Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 07-27-2004, 12:44 AM:
 
Phil..
Moments, well, hours actually, after I said those two magic words.. something like this happens... [eyes]

 -
 
Posted by Tal Marks (Member # 175) on 07-27-2004, 01:10 AM:
 
This was a picture I took last week at Radio City Music Hall during our video setup for the fist WNBA game held there.

 -
 
Posted by Kyle McEachern (Member # 2250) on 07-27-2004, 03:22 AM:
 
From here, here, and here..

A common theme, and maybe one that might make Amazon want to rethink their policy on what to add onto EVERY page...

 -

and...

 -

and finally...

 -
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 07-27-2004, 04:35 AM:
 
Ya know Kyle, I'd be interested to know *WHY* you're looking for those particular "products". Especially mail-order and why you can wait 2-3 days for shipping.

No wait! Ummmmm... I thought about it... disregard my question.

>>> Phil
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-27-2004, 04:36 AM:
 
I actually know a few people who just might be cheap enough to want to get those used.

Did you actually click on the condom link? First thing it says..."Our sellers load used and refurbished inventory every day."
 
Posted by Kyle McEachern (Member # 2250) on 07-27-2004, 04:44 AM:
 
Phil:

 -  -  -

Brad:

The most disturbing one of those to me is the enema/douche one. Maybe it's just me, but it seems like enemas and douches are things you'd wanna keep pretty SEPARATE from one another. But even worse is the last part...water bottle as well????

What kind of people are they trying to sell these products to? An all-in-one enema/douche/water bottle...seriously now...
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 07-27-2004, 07:33 AM:
 
 -

Ran under DOS but contained an installation of a GUI called Geoworks. I reinstalled it a few years ago and let it dial in but the mother ship said no longer supported and I would need to upgrade. [Frown]
 
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 07-28-2004, 01:22 AM:
 
 -
 
Posted by Christopher Duvall (Member # 284) on 07-28-2004, 02:40 AM:
 
I went to BLUE MAN GROUP this last Sunday. I have lived here for 4 years and never some them live until then. What a great show. The Vegas show cast and crew come regularly to my theatre and I have finally took them up on the offer to see them at the Luxor.

 -
 
Posted by Dan Lyons (Member # 1454) on 07-28-2004, 03:07 AM:
 
I'd love a close up of that guys skin after his makeup is off. [puke]
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 07-28-2004, 08:22 PM:
 
Christopher,

Is that Mark Knopfler on the left?

BTW: The BMG suck big time. What a stupid-ass, boring show.

>>> Phil
 
Posted by Christopher Duvall (Member # 284) on 07-29-2004, 04:36 PM:
 
Ha...pretty funny. [Big Grin] I didn't even think of that after tying that paper around my head.

BTW...you are crazy Phil. That show rocked. Now I have not seen their other 3 shows in Chicago, Boston and New York. Each one is different but I do know that the Vegas show was awesome. Then again, I have a finely tuned sense of the absurd which makes the show appeal to me.
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 07-29-2004, 09:29 PM:
 
 -

Shocking!

>>> Phil
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 07-30-2004, 12:04 AM:
 
Giant Tesla coil?
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 07-30-2004, 12:11 AM:
 
Actually Steve it's a huge Marx impulse generator that controls the potential/discharge energy vs. time so as to produce a fast rise-time arc that will produce those extreme HV discharges.

Cool Stuff!

>>> Phil
 
Posted by Kyle McEachern (Member # 2250) on 07-30-2004, 02:23 AM:
 
This one has now been fixed, but deserves a place in the Guinness Book for 'Most Offensive Link Accidentally Placed on a Website'

 -
 
Posted by David Favel (Member # 1125) on 07-30-2004, 04:46 AM:
 
Osama's bin Surfing
 
Posted by Christopher Duvall (Member # 284) on 07-30-2004, 07:03 AM:
 
I took this shot from the parking garage at Green Valley Ranch over looking the Vegas valley on July 17th. Phil's shocking picture reminded me of this one and figured I had to post...

 -
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 08-04-2004, 11:37 AM:
 
 -

In color!
 
Posted by Steve Scott (Member # 630) on 08-04-2004, 01:34 PM:
 
Musta ran out of color by the time advertising came to mind [Smile]
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 08-04-2004, 02:47 PM:
 
Kind of a throwback to the 60's to put that in the ad. Sort of like when so many tv shows were touted as "In Color" that it was almost an extension of the title.
 
Posted by Steve Scott (Member # 630) on 08-04-2004, 02:49 PM:
 
Too bad for the people who like their X-rated films in B&W
 
Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 08-04-2004, 03:38 PM:
 
This film was at the Cannes film Festival last year and was laughed off the screen for being so bad.
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 08-04-2004, 10:41 PM:
 
I'm on the left...


 -


>>> Phil
 
Posted by Per Hauberg (Member # 529) on 08-05-2004, 04:06 AM:
 
Did You get well lubed ?
 
Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 08-05-2004, 04:25 AM:
 
After poor results from the chicken grease from Kentucky Fried Chicken across the street, he decided to try mineral based petroleum [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 08-07-2004, 11:18 AM:
 
Simply beautiful.

 -
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-07-2004, 02:48 PM:
 
What is that? A crack pipe? I've always suspected Steve, but know it is known.[av=d]
 
Posted by Jon Miller (Member # 163) on 08-07-2004, 05:18 PM:
 
Steve, I concur! [Big Grin]

What size trim and what model of lamphouse was used?
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 08-07-2004, 05:32 PM:
 
Ashcraft Super Corelight. Didn't notice the trim; I'll look next time.

See page 7 of this thread for the full monty.
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 08-07-2004, 05:34 PM:
 
Joe, speaking of "crack":

 -

>>> Phil
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 08-07-2004, 05:43 PM:
 
The bearer of lube and the bearer of condoms, center and right? Phil must be just out of frame on the left.
 
Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 08-09-2004, 02:51 AM:
 
Likely an 11mm, but it looks like a 13mm to me.
The carbon in the lamp, that is.
 
Posted by Matthew Peters (Member # 1495) on 08-09-2004, 09:31 AM:
 
From my Business Systems debate @ Uni.
(we won!)
"Global IT outsourcing is a bad thing"

 -
 
Posted by Steve Scott (Member # 630) on 08-09-2004, 03:37 PM:
 
A follow-up:

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=entertainmentNews&storyID=560265§ion=news

Controversial "Brown Bunny" billboard comes down
Fri 6 August, 2004 04:33

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A billboard on Los Angeles' famous Sunset Strip showing a graphic sex act and promoting upcoming independent movie "The Brown Bunny" has been taken down, a spokeswoman for the film says.

The sign depicts a scene toward the end of the movie where the main character, a motorcycle racer played by the film's director Vincent Gallo, is having oral sex performed on him by a former girlfriend for whom he still longs.

The company contracted to place the sign, Regency Outdoor Advertising, declined to comment on Thursday. Gallo also had no comment.

The Sunset Strip is filled with racy signs promoting fashion, films, TV shows and even pornographic movies, but "The Brown Bunny" billboard had raised eyebrows and generated attention in the U.S. media.

Gallo told Reuters Wednesday that the image on the billboard was meant to "give the impression that the entire film is sophisticated and for adults." He said it was not aimed at the film's naysayers, but rather at its supporters.

An early version of the movie was panned by critics after first being shown at the Cannes film festival in 2003, but it has since screened well at Toronto and other film festivals.

Gallo plays a man so haunted by his love for his one-time girlfriend, Daisy (Chloe Sevigny), that he embarks on a cross country road trip to try to forget her. He meets many other women along the way but fails to form lasting bonds.

Taxi Driver-style sophistication?
 
Posted by Jason Miller (Member # 2341) on 08-09-2004, 03:53 PM:
 
I wouldnt mind Chloe Sevigny for a photo shoot myself...
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 08-10-2004, 06:56 PM:
 
She's kinda cute but she ain't no....(fill in the blank with one of your favorites)...but then again ____ didn't (ya know) on screen. So there is that.

---

On an unrelated note, how about a picture of the Film-Tech boxen?
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 08-14-2004, 11:40 PM:
 
 -
 
Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 08-15-2004, 03:56 AM:
 
Snoogans!
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 08-15-2004, 09:40 AM:
 
Far left end of the same image:

 -

2 Jays, small & synthetic and the real deal.

I was there on behalf of Warner Bros.; just killing time at this point.
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-15-2004, 05:19 PM:
 
This was found in an electrical supply distributer in Vernal Utah on my last service trip.
 -

For some reason this makes me think of one certain person here....

Mark
 
Posted by James B. Openshaw (Member # 1310) on 08-15-2004, 06:23 PM:
 
This is my first upload. It is a Photoshopped Image. I designed it after the Disney Shareholder Meeting when Eisner promoted George Mitchell to Chairman after the shareholder majority voted against both of them.

 -

What do you think?
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 08-15-2004, 06:33 PM:
 
I think you spoiled it by telling us it was Photoshopped! [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 08-17-2004, 01:26 AM:
 
[dlp] caching test.

 -

 -
 
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 08-17-2004, 01:46 AM:
 
 -
 
Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 08-17-2004, 02:06 AM:
 
Why can't I see any of these pictures? All I see is the ILLEGAL PICTURE thing. Any help? I wanna laugh too... [Confused]

AJG
 
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 08-17-2004, 02:09 AM:
 
No help for you! [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 08-17-2004, 02:28 AM:
 
Daryl, you truly are a Film God. Sorry for my faux pas though. [Embarrassed]

EDIT: Found a funny picture

 -

This place does exist, as I pass it when I drive to Indianapolis. It's on US31 North/South in Tipton, IN. I need to arrange for time to actually eat there!

AJG
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 08-17-2004, 09:39 PM:
 
 -

What kind of stock is this? Agfa? Or what? It's polyester base; kinda thick feeling. The movie was Thai; I don't know where the print was made.
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 08-17-2004, 11:33 PM:
 
This picture was sent in for posting on the forums, unbeknownst to the person in the shot.  -
 
Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 08-17-2004, 11:45 PM:
 
Icon shirt...hmm wonder who that could be....
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-18-2004, 12:03 AM:
 
Was that taken at one of those restaurants that make a big to-do and sing "happy happy birthday!" disturbing every other patron in the building? God I hate those places. I had to deal with that today as I was trying to eat a burger next to someone who was having a happy happy birthday. [av=g]

PS - Brad it looks like that pic has a few emulsion scratches. [Smile]
 
Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 08-18-2004, 01:39 AM:
 
Yes, Steve that's Agfa stock all right. [Smile]

-Aaron
 
Posted by Dan Lyons (Member # 1454) on 08-18-2004, 02:12 AM:
 
You know that one line people scream at RHPS when Frank walks by with cold cream all over his face? I'll just think it... won't say a word. [evil]

danny
 
Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 08-18-2004, 06:45 PM:
 
Looks like Josh, and with the Icon shirt, I'd bet for sure it's him.

Icon is not his cult status. It is the name brand of an up & coming line of bike apparel. I, myself, have an Icon mainframe helmet. Very trick helmet, if you ask me. Icon makes some pretty cool gear also...
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 08-18-2004, 07:05 PM:
 
 -
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-18-2004, 08:05 PM:
 
Steve -

Explain. Now. And it had better be funny or at least interesting. Otherwise you will be BANNED for a week for uploading something so lame.[av=h]
 
Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 08-18-2004, 08:39 PM:
 
Kitty go down the hole!

 -
 
Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 08-18-2004, 10:18 PM:
 
PLUCKY GO DOWN DA HOLE!!!!
 
Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 08-18-2004, 10:21 PM:
 
Toot-Toot COME BACK! Ducky COME BACK!

(Obscure Television Refrence)
 
Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 08-19-2004, 12:59 AM:
 
 -

What kind of format was this?
Did Phil Hill do this one, too?
 
Posted by Dan Lyons (Member # 1454) on 08-19-2004, 06:40 AM:
 
I like the Pink Flamingo... but not much else. [Roll Eyes]

danny
 
Posted by Dick Vaughan (Member # 540) on 08-19-2004, 08:36 AM:
 
quote: Jason Black
I, myself, have an Icon mainframe helmet.
Scuse my ignorance. Does a mainframe helmet connect to your cerebral cortex and allow you to run a helmet network [Confused] [Wink]
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-19-2004, 11:52 AM:
 
 -

This is an item for "the movie theater with everything" (including a large advertising budget). LED message centers are pretty cool. But this one is not going to be installed at a movie theater. It is going to a bank. Naturally, the phiggidy DD and DTS spams will be deleted.
 
Posted by Jeff Stuckey (Member # 1718) on 08-19-2004, 12:09 PM:
 
I am having a great time looking at all of these pictures, and thought that I would share one myself. This is a picture I took at the Mandalay Bay Shark Reef in Las Vegas. I took it with my digital camera, and must not have had the settings correct as far as an appropriate capture. However I think the picture looks better being blurry. Here it is...

 -
 
Posted by Per Hauberg (Member # 529) on 08-19-2004, 07:06 PM:
 
That red blurr down right under the shark - Would that a certain Mr Hill ??
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-19-2004, 08:45 PM:
 
"What kind of format was this?
Did Phil Hill do this one, too?"

Bwahahahahaha... William thats a classic [thumbsup] It would have had to be combined with Smell-O-Vision!

Mark
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 08-19-2004, 10:38 PM:
 
quote:
It would have had to be combined with Smell-O-Vision!

Yeah Mark! [thumbsup] I made a shitload of $$$ on doing a rip-off of that! [beer]

I'm STILL laughing all the way to the bank EVERY month! [beer]

"Just especially" for Dan Lyon:

 -



BTW: Ya dumbass' that "flower shop" pic is NOT my business. I'm currently flippin' burgers here:

 -

>>> Phil
 
Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 08-20-2004, 01:08 AM:
 
quote: Dan Lyons
I like the Pink Flamingo... but not much else.
I dunno, the ceramic armodillo thing or whatever is kinda working for me...
 
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 08-20-2004, 10:00 AM:
 
So phil where is that diner actually?
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 08-20-2004, 04:07 PM:
 
Gordon, it's on Chandler Blvd in North Hollywood, CA. It was there as of last year...the last time I drove by it.

>>> Phil
 
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 08-21-2004, 04:30 PM:
 
Kintek rules.
 -
 
Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 08-21-2004, 08:50 PM:
 
Indeed. No better suround speaker has ever been made.
 -
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 08-21-2004, 09:27 PM:
 
Camera 54, where are you?

 -


>>> Phil
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 08-21-2004, 10:04 PM:
 
Any explanation?
 
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 08-21-2004, 10:09 PM:
 
Wow. Out with the old (RCA TK-41(C)s in the back) and in with the new (Norelco PC-60s or -70s in front). I pity the video shaders trying to get those pictures to match. [Big Grin]

Probably ESU for an ABC Wide World of Sports golf shoot. Truck Phase 6 is probably close by.
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 08-21-2004, 10:11 PM:
 
quote: Steve Kraus
Any explanation?
Ummm... NO!

Ok, Ok, OK! I guess I better post something before that jerk Joe bans me!

It's a publicity photo from ABC's "Wide, Wide, World Of Sports" coverage touting how many cameras they have for a golf tournament. (Like I care?)

Edit:
quote: Paul Mayer
I pity the video shaders trying to get those pictures to match.
Paul, I pity ANY "shader" or "colorist".... what a f*cking BORING job!

>>> Phil
 
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 08-21-2004, 10:30 PM:
 
Eh, it's a living. [Razz] Paid for college and flight lessons. [thumbsup]
Even if I was accused of being color blind from time to time. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 08-21-2004, 11:20 PM:
 
Amazing. All those cameras for one probably low-rated broacast and Roone's salary too.

BTW, those RCA's had most of their electronics back in a rack or two, right? How self-contained were the Norelco's? Were their CCU's just CCU's, that is, to balance and control, etc. or did they still represent half the guts of the camera?
 
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 08-22-2004, 01:32 AM:
 
Most of the guts of a PC-70 were in the CCU, but it was pretty compact for its time--about one half-height rack with an optional shelf extension out the front for the OCP. About the only electronics in the camera head itself were the RGB preamps.

 -  -  -

At TAV we configured the CCUs with all the modules above the OCP instead of below as in the lefthand photo. Much easier to get to stuff that way.

IIRC the TK-41C CCU took up two full-height racks. The "C" designation was for the transistorized pre-amps--everything else in the camera and CCU was still tubes.

I broke in as a TV cameraman on the TK-41C, and later broke in as a video shader on the PC-70. One neat engineering feature on the PC-70 was that pedestal insertion took place right at the beginning of each color's A-module within the CCU. Also the master pedestal level was infinitely variable from 0-100IRE, meaning that a video guy could do complete RGB grayscale tracking in the CCU without having to have the head powered, or even connected. Never needed a chip chart for those cameras, just a registration chart with a black reference chip. That used to save us lots of time on remote shoots--Bob Cadigan and I could begin camera set up while the guys were still physically setting up and cabling the heads. The PC-70 is still a personal favorite, arguably Philips' best tube camera ever.
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 08-22-2004, 02:11 AM:
 
quote: Paul Mayer
The PC-70 is still a personal favorite, arguably Philips' best tube camera ever.

I agree Paul about the PC-70s. I also like that big ol' POS RCA TK-42 for nostalgic reasons!

For B&W: The TK-60 still makes my tongue hard! [evil]

 -

(Yea! 5820 IO's!)

>>> Phil
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 08-22-2004, 10:48 AM:
 
What period was each camera made?

Give me a nice monoscope with an Indian-head TP. Who says a TV picture must move? [Razz]
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-22-2004, 12:05 PM:
 
Inside a TK-41....

 -

Photo is from the same site that Phil has been getting the above photos from....

And specially for Steve....... All about the Order of the Indian Head......
http://www.pharis-video.com/p21.htm

Enjoy!

Mark
 
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 08-22-2004, 12:07 PM:
 
The TK-40 and TK-41 were first-generation color cameras dating from 1953. Not sure when the TK-41C came out--I would guess early '60s. NBC continued to use them up through the end of the '60s when the TK-44 began to replace them.

The TK-60 was RCA's last B&W camera--it also dates from the '60s. The local PBS affiliate KLVX opened with these cameras in the studio in 1967. When the studio switched to color production using a pair of TK-41Cs in 1973, the TK-60s went into the remote truck (a 1953 Chevy step van first owned by KHJ in LA) replacing the original equipment TK-10s(!). KLVX is where I got my start right out of high school in 1973.

The PC-60 came out in 1966, the PC-70 in 1968. The PC-70 (and its handheld sibling the PCP-90) became the standard of the industry for the next 15 years. I started learning video shading in 1974 on the PC-70, apprenticing under the great Bob Cadigan at Trans American Video. (On the PL, Cadigan was known as "The Monsignor"; my nickname became "Monjunior.") TAV had two trucks in those days--units 140 and 540, each set up to handle six PC-70s or PCP-90s (the same CCUs could be used for either).
 
Posted by Ron Yost (Member # 1850) on 08-22-2004, 06:24 PM:
 
There are four TK-60's 'in action' (meaning operating for real, not faked) in the original 1962 version of "The Manchurian Candidate". On the newly released DVD they're in Chapter 7.

John Frankenheimer was directing them from the camera truck, according to his director's commentary on the DVD, and it was done in one-take.

Ron Yost
 
Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 09-01-2004, 12:24 AM:
 
 -
I have to carry ALL these books with me Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. I have class 8 to 2 and have no time to return to my apartment-even though its just off campus-to drop off/pick up books.

I think by the end of the semester I will be in much better shape. Perhaps with a bad back, but in better shape.
 
Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 09-01-2004, 01:58 AM:
 
So you're taking an ART course...

I'm glad my art class doesn't require us to have a book.
I'm the kind of student who loves to buy the book ahead of time. Then when I asked if we were going to use the book, he said no. So I got my money back! I have to carry enough art supplies. I'll get muscles in my arms instead of a hunch back.
 
Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 09-01-2004, 02:16 AM:
 
No, not art, worse, ART HISTORY.
[puke]
 
Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 09-01-2004, 02:27 AM:
 
You mean you guys actually go to class? Wow. [Smile]
 
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-01-2004, 06:05 AM:
 
Art History...code named..."Art in the Dark"...since mostly people sit in a darkened classroom and look at slides of Art.

Steve
 
Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 09-01-2004, 07:28 AM:
 
 -

Sure, nothing to do with what is being discussed, but it was too funny to resist posting.

AJG
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-03-2004, 09:40 PM:
 
We just got our seats replaced. Here is a photo of the completed project. (This is my first attempt at a picture upload so let's cross our fingers...)

 -

These seats were made by Greystone Seating in Michigan. They are VERY well-built and comfortable! They were purchased from and installed by Claco Equipment out of Salt Lake City, home of film-techer Mark Gulbrandsen.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-03-2004, 09:56 PM:
 
quote: Jennifer Pan
I'm glad my art class doesn't require us to have a book.
You're lucky you didn't have some of my art history classes! For one class, I had to have both H.W. Janson's History of Art and Gardner's Art Throughout the Ages. Each book runs about 800 pages, is big and heavy (not to mention expensive, around $50 each). It was a real pain in the ass to lug those things around on a commute from Staten Island to midtown Manhattan.

I still have my copies. They help me keep on my toes for those art history category questions on Jeopardy!

quote: Steve Guttag
Art History...code named..."Art in the Dark"...since mostly people sit in a darkened classroom and look at slides of Art.
Yeah, you sit there trying to write down lots of notes in near dark conditions...all while fighting off the need to sleep. For the last week of class you sit there in terror wondering how you're going to do on the slide show final exam. The Medici Family? Who the hell are they? Well, it wasn't quite that bad. I found Gene Stavis' film history exam at SVA to be a tougher challenge.
 
Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 09-03-2004, 10:08 PM:
 
When I was in my art appreciation class the book cost around $70-$80. I was so glad to get rid of it when the semester was over. I seriously don't think I needed to know every great artist since the dawn of time. Plus taking 4 years of art classes prior to that class was enough art history for me.

Mike, those seats do look comfortable [Smile] I want to test them out.
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 09-03-2004, 10:14 PM:
 
Art history was one of my favorite courses in high school, despite the fact that I got a C (might have been a C-) in it. The material was fascinating, as it covered politics, religion, history, and many other related subjects as well. I haven't taken another art history course since then, but it definitely increased my awareness and appreciation of art (primarily painting, but also sculpture, architecture, etc.).
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 09-03-2004, 10:18 PM:
 
Slides suck! They can convey no real feel or meaning from the painting itself. For real art appreciation all one has to do is go to any one of the famous museums in the world. The National Gallery is probably my favorite in the States. All supposed colleges should make a trip to this museum mandatory if you are taking any art classes!

Mark
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-03-2004, 11:24 PM:
 
Galleries are one of the primary factors that make it highly advantageous to study art in New York City. You've got the Met, MOMA, the Whitney, Guggenheim and many others. Plus you have SOHO for all its new stuff. I was also fascinated by all the different architecture.

The National Gallery in DC has a great collection.
 
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-03-2004, 11:31 PM:
 
The National Gallery of Art also is the home of a pair of Kinoton FP 38E-S projectors too! The NGA is certainly run by top-flight people too...they really seem to care about what they do in most all areas.

Steve
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 09-05-2004, 11:13 PM:
 
This gives new meaning to then term "Extreme Sports"!

 -

Mark
 
Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 09-06-2004, 09:44 AM:
 
Ahhhh, that is SO cute!!! [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 09-07-2004, 08:17 PM:
 
 -

(Addresses deleted. Recipient address was hand printed legibly and was correct.)

Mailed: Chicago July 28
Destination: Portland, Maine
Returned to sender: Chicago, Sept 7

Excuse: Not deliverable as addressed. Forwarding order expired.
Um...it was correct as written and there has been no move. [Confused]

Best of all: Note the 2nd cancellation (upside down) at lower left: SAN JOSE, CA AUG 27. [Eek!]

Is it any wonder people email, fax, or use private carriers?
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 09-11-2004, 10:20 PM:
 
I've gotta get this one put on T-Shirt....

 -

Mark
 
Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 09-15-2004, 02:50 AM:
 
 -
 
Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 09-15-2004, 02:58 AM:
 
Awwww.... poor kitty [Frown] ... Its so cute though [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-15-2004, 05:28 PM:
 
The kitty and gun are Photoshopped (the light direction on the hand and gun element are coming from a different angle). And isn't that kitty from the Rathergood.com website?
 
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 09-15-2004, 10:26 PM:
 
My kind of kitten: [Big Grin]

 -
 
Posted by Emma Tomiak (Member # 1862) on 09-15-2004, 10:33 PM:
 
Indeed it is, Bobby. [thumbsup]
 
Posted by Ron Yost (Member # 1850) on 09-15-2004, 10:51 PM:
 
Hmmmm .. packin' pussies! Geez, is nothing sacred. [Eek!]

Ron Yost
 
Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 09-16-2004, 12:08 AM:
 
 -
 -
 
Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 09-16-2004, 02:56 AM:
 
 -

Check out the many other funny Star Wars pics at this link.

AJG
 
Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 09-20-2004, 03:07 AM:
 
Shortly after daybreak, the morning after the hurricane's eye had passed shortly before , still blowing a gale, please excuse the camera shake, the bottom third of a formerly 2,000 foot tower:

 -

I'm glad it was dark, because I sho nuff didn't want to see the fan that this shit hit!

About 35 miles inland from where the hurricane made landfall. The hurricane made landfall in Gulf Shores, Alabama (red star), the tower site is at the green square, I was spending the night at a xmtr/tower site at the blue square mostly outside shoveling dirt to keep water out of the building (Mobile's broadcasters have their xmtr facilities on the other side of the bay to pull in more population).

 -

Alabama fortunately had a mandatory evacuation of everything below I-10 in the picture. Big storm: tornadoes 'way to the east in Mississippi (still without power there in many places), New Orleans didn't get more rain than a bad tropical storm but the wind was strong enough to send three-foot waves in Lake Pontchartrain over the levee (but not over the next "hurricane" levee), Mobile of course is a mess.

It was still a hurricane about 180 miles inland, tearing stuff up all the way. Gulf Shores is razed, of course, but the big loser was Pensacola, which was on the 'dirty' side of the storm. The eye didn't pass over there, so they never stopped getting hammered. If you haven't seen any of the pictures, Pensacola was just chewed up & spat out; it looks like a bolus. The interstate-type bridge over Pensacola Bay was obliterated in places. It's pre-civilization over there now of course - no safe water or sewage, no power, contests for shelter, no gas or places to buy food because of no power & water, etc.

The storm spawned an incredible number of tornadoes all along the coast. I wonder if the reason that John Pytlak (and obviously many others) think that "5 miles" from landfall is safe is not just because of the point nature of of the tracking charts, but also because of confusing a hurricane with a tornado.

All the Alabama Power crews & trucks that have been in Florida helping patch up are now back in Alabama, all the Mississippi Power trucks that were in Florida are now back in Mississippi.

Dauphin Island is scrubbed again. After Frederic, FEMA said that the bridge to it (and other barrier islands) should not be rebuilt, because it would lead to overdevelopment. Politics pushed the bridge through, & sure enough, they overbuilt the sand bar that is Dauphin Island with condos & expensive houses that will now be making claims for total loss with the federal flood insurance program. They need to stop writing those policies for buildings on barrier islands, not the least because the development wrecks the dunes that hold the islands together.

One of the cool things about getting ready for the hurricane was coming into contact again at gas stations, etc. with the folks who live in the remaining rural areas of southern Baldwin County (the east side of Mobile Bay, where the hurricane made landfall). "Hurricane out there, Bobby!" "Yep, got to shut up & get out." "Shut up" meaning "Shut up the house". The double-entendre is excellent, though, & I think "Shut up & get out" should be made the official motto of hurricane preparedness. That's how those folks do it, live through the things, & it's the only way to do it.

(Screaming into cell phone in the wind):
YES, I'M OVER THERE NOW, BUT I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING I CAN DO TO PUT IT BACK ON THE AIR...I CAN TURN THE GENERATOR OFF IF YOU WANT
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 09-27-2004, 11:19 PM:
 
 -

The Pullman Conductors of Jazz
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 10-07-2004, 12:00 AM:
 
 -
 
Posted by Dan Bouvier (Member # 2655) on 10-07-2004, 04:24 AM:
 
Here's me kissing my pet spider whilst drunk:
 -
For more stupidity, see my lamphouse thread in the Film Handler's Forum.
 
Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 10-07-2004, 09:21 PM:
 
Steve, where was that "Jazz" picture taken?
 
Posted by Stephen Jones (Member # 16) on 10-07-2004, 10:25 PM:
 
I liked the pics of the cats very amusing and I dont even like cats.How come they are not there now only a pic of Joe well I think it's him with a caption about illegal picture etc.

Steve [Cool]
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-07-2004, 10:33 PM:
 
Read the FAQ.
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 10-08-2004, 07:19 PM:
 
Rachel:
They gave a short concert ahead of a silent film presentation at the Arcada Theatre, St. Charles, IL (far western suburb of Chicago on the Fox River); same event I dissed in the Suck thread in FHF for having to stop the show to fix framing.

The leader, obscured by his tuba, wears a passenger train conductor's cap.
 
Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 10-09-2004, 02:33 AM:
 
Took this picture about 3 hours ago in downtown Phoenix, AZ. Some kind of public concert stage. Very beautiful little park around it.

 -
 
Posted by Dean Kollet (Member # 1789) on 10-09-2004, 02:39 AM:
 
that's cool, if you look at the whole thing from far away, is that supposed to be some design?
 
Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 10-09-2004, 02:52 AM:
 
I believe so, I don't know if these next pictures will help you on what the design actually looks like. But it looks amazing at night.

 -
 -
 
Posted by Brent Neal Jones (Member # 1048) on 10-09-2004, 03:06 AM:
 
Let's see if I can do this...  -
My first pic on Film-Tech can I get an Amen and a drum roll please! [Cool]

Now, why the hell can't I see it...let's see here....
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 10-09-2004, 08:44 AM:
 
I think it's a place to be naughty about 3AM. Too bad you were already home by then. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 10-09-2004, 11:13 AM:
 
You would enjoy that too much. [Wink]
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 10-10-2004, 07:34 PM:
 
Let me think about it.

And think about it.

And think about it.

Ahhh. Now then...what was the question?
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-10-2004, 09:44 PM:
 
Steve you really need to get out of the house (or "hizzouse"). Set a goal and follow through. Try it this week! [Smile]
 
Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 10-10-2004, 11:34 PM:
 
From my trip to downtown Flagstaff, AZ:
 -

Autumn makes pictures look so beautiful [Smile] The trip to Sedona was gorgeous also.

 -
 
Posted by Jonathan Worthing (Member # 803) on 10-11-2004, 07:59 AM:
 
 -

My wife & I walking down the aisle 25 September 2004
The happiest day of my life.

Will post the Divorce papers when I get to the second happiest day of my life [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 10-11-2004, 09:22 AM:
 
I guess the wife doesn't read F-T, eh? Congrats and all that. [Smile]

As for Flagstaff, what sort of lack of creativity causes one to name a town after a flagpole?
 
Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 10-11-2004, 09:40 AM:
 
quote:
The names of the spring at the old location underwent several name changes, starting with Antelope, then Flagstaff, and then--with the creation of the new town and railroad--becoming Old Town Spring. In 1882, there were ten buildings at Old Town, but in 1883 business moved to the new railroad depot and by 1884 Old Town was almost deserted. When the post office was established at the new location, the name Flagstaff was the natural choice.
http://jeff.scott.tripod.com/flagstaff.html

It's supposedly the "place" to go for skiing or any winter activity in AZ. When I went there... I was so used to the hot Phoenix weather I was freezing.
 
Posted by Per Hauberg (Member # 529) on 10-12-2004, 03:20 AM:
 
ok, now I've got something, that I don't believe is in the FAQ:

When I'm going through the "Random Pictures" posts, all pics from page 12 and forward are replaced by Joe Redifers angry face

How come ?

Per
 
Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 10-12-2004, 03:48 AM:
 
Deleted by Admin - he who doesn't read the FAQ needs no cheating assistance.

[ 10-12-2004, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: Brad Miller ]
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 10-12-2004, 06:56 AM:
 
 -

Edit: Out of place text removed.

[ 10-12-2004, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: Steve Kraus ]
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-12-2004, 11:05 AM:
 
Because it IS in the FAQ.
 
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 10-19-2004, 07:16 PM:
 
From a booth with Strong projectors/consoles:
 -
 
Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 10-19-2004, 07:20 PM:
 
My assumption is that might just be from an AMC booth.
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 10-19-2004, 07:33 PM:
 
Me looking at the arc of a 15kW lamp on a 1570 "rolling-loop" projector... before my "accident"... (J/K!) [Razz]

 -

BTW Adam... I'm NOT going to comment on the mis-spelling of "Douser". SOME people cannot take "constuctive" information... [Wink]

>>> Phil
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-19-2004, 07:42 PM:
 
And yet people give me the most confused looks when I say I don't use dousers in platter complexes. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 10-19-2004, 09:07 PM:
 
I think that's how Phil makes popcorn.
 
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 10-19-2004, 09:55 PM:
 
It was not in an AMC theater. And I didn't write it, I just took a picture of it!

Actually, that photo that Phil posted is of himself trying to get a tan. Hint: Take off some clothes!

[ 10-20-2004, 01:09 AM: Message edited by: Adam Martin ]
 
Posted by Christopher Duvall (Member # 284) on 10-20-2004, 04:55 AM:
 
Don't tempt him...he may actually do it. [evil]
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 10-21-2004, 05:50 PM:
 
ONLY cuz I wanted to be the 1000th REPLIER in this thread.... [Razz]

 -

...and I bet all this time yous thought "HD" stood for High Definition! HA!

>>> Phil

Edit: Corrected "poster" to "Replier"... HA!
 
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 10-21-2004, 06:11 PM:
 
That'd be the 1000th reply, also known as the 1001st post, dork!
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 10-21-2004, 06:16 PM:
 
Hahahhahaha... OK, Daryl... whatever! BUT! YOUR software said the 1000th post and prior to my post said 999.

I cannot be held responsible for inferior programming/software... I'm not a programmer...just a doctor, Jim!

BTW: PLEASE spare me the mods to the software that makes my post 1001! HA!

>>> Phil

Edit: I stand corrected. Daryl is correct. The column heading does say "Replies". (But! I will NEVER tell him that I was wrong!)
 
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 10-21-2004, 06:39 PM:
 
No need to change the software, the index clearly says replies and not posts.

Regardless, you said poster, in which case you were the 11th out of a total of 91.
 
Posted by Emma Tomiak (Member # 1862) on 10-21-2004, 07:25 PM:
 
Someone Mario'd (sp?) my school's math and nursing building!

 -

It's in sidewalk chalk. Pretty sweet.
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 10-21-2004, 08:18 PM:
 
Are the bricks divided into "pixels" or am I just seeing the brick and mortar grid?

Also contemplating the interesting juxtaposition of math and nursing.
 
Posted by Emma Tomiak (Member # 1862) on 10-21-2004, 10:15 PM:
 
Each brick is "cut in half", each half representing one pixel. So you're kindof seeing both. Kinda cool to come out of class and see Mario. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 10-21-2004, 11:42 PM:
 
Yeah, that's kinda what I thought they did. Nice job.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-22-2004, 08:25 PM:
 
I happened to be in the right spot to take a picture of this today:

 -

Naturally, the "wrong spot" would have been in between the fire truck and the traffic light post.

Yes, this happened when the truck was trying to make it to a house fire. And the house burned down. I think some other fire trucks got to scene in time to roast some marshmallows over the smoldering embers.
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 10-22-2004, 08:31 PM:
 
quote: Bobby Henderson
And the house burned down.
While that pic may be funny to some, I sincerely feel sorry for the people that lost all including their reminders/mementos of their past cuz of the stupidity and carelessness of the FD.

>>> Phil
 
Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 10-23-2004, 01:07 AM:
 
It doesn't look like any damamge was done to the truck, one has to wonder why they didn't just pull back and go on to the fire. I think they would have been excused for 'fleeing' the scene of an accident in this case.
 
Posted by Ben Holley (Member # 2247) on 10-23-2004, 01:21 AM:
 
if he had backed up to pull away that pole he hit most likely would have fallen back down onto the firetruck, besides we all know that after he hit the pole he got out to solve the issue that distracted him in the first place, hot fudge sundays! [beer]
 
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 10-23-2004, 02:40 AM:
 
Why the hell was a ladder truck of that size heading to a house fire?
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-23-2004, 11:20 AM:
 
What was a ladder truck doing going to a house fire? In Lawton, there's nothing else for a firefighter to do!

Here's an update on that story. Speaking of the damage to the truck, the photo doesn't really show it but the front bumper and body panels on the front of the truck were dented and bent pretty good.

I find the investigation into the house fire a bit more disturbing. At first, I figured it might have been a meth lab that went up in flames. Meth labs are one of the leading causes of house fires in Oklahoma these days. But here's the story from our local newspaper:

quote:
By Debi DeSilver Terry, Staff writer
dterry@lawton-constitution.com

A death is being investigated as suspicious after firefighters discovered a body at a burning home in northwest Lawton Friday.

A revolver was found near the body, confirmed Lawton Police Department Capt. W.H. Mathis, commander, Criminal Investigations Division. However, Mathis would not confirm or deny that any shell casings were found.

"We are still treating this as a suspicious death," Mathis said. "We are waiting for the fire department to determine the cause of the fire." The body, identified as Charles A. Gilley Jr., 47, has been sent to the medical examiner's office in Oklahoma City, Mathis said.

City of Lawton Fire Marshal Mark Mitchell said the fire agency is working in conjunction with the police department to try and put the pieces together on what happened.

"When our guys made entry through the front door, a victim was discovered in the living room area. The officer in charge cautioned his people that this may be a possible crime scene. They checked for signs of life and didn't find any. It did not appear that the victim expired as the result of the fire. Our men tried to protect that area while extinguishing the fire," Mitchell said.

The Lawton Fire Department dispatch received the call to respond to 1911 NW Glenn at 12:37 p.m., according to records. LPD Lt. Rusty Wright said the fire was called in by a neighbor down the street.

Wright said that the cause of the fire and death are still under investigation.

"It's such a mess in there," Mitchell said. "We are working in an area right now that is about to collapse. We're not sure exactly where the fire started. We are looking at a northwest corner. That area is a possibility, but it is unsound. I really don't know if we are going to be able to call it or not. There is a considerable amount of material stored in there."

Mitchell said three engine trucks, a ladder truck, a brush truck, a rescue truck and a deputy fire chief all initially responded to the blaze.

"Our guys made a good effort; a good save. They were hampered by the fact that this is an older home. Hopefully what we find out from our investigation will help the police department form a theory or hypothesis on if this was intentional, accidental or foul play," Mitchell said.

One of the fire trucks responding to the fire on Glenn crashed into a city pole at the intersection of Fort Sill Boulevard and Ferris Avenue, said LPD Capt. Angie Chiarappa. She said she believed that the wet conditions contributed to the accident.

One firefighter was taken to the hospital, treated for a lower back injury and released, said LFD Capt. Lonnie London. He said the firefighter has already returned to work.

"We couldn't turn," London said, who was the officer on the truck. "The wet road conditions definitely were a factor."

Lawton Constitution reporter Kevin J. Shutt contributed to this article.


 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 10-23-2004, 04:11 PM:
 
 -

>>> Phil
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 10-23-2004, 09:31 PM:
 
Actual arc illumination, Phil?
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 10-23-2004, 09:35 PM:
 
Yep...

>>> Phil
 
Posted by Luciano Brigite (Member # 1104) on 10-24-2004, 12:50 AM:
 
I wonder if I'll ever see one of those nice lamps again..or find one,still unmodified ,to have for display... been years since I last worked with them..
 
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 10-24-2004, 01:01 AM:
 
I dropped one down a flight of stairs a few weeks ago... oops!
 
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 10-24-2004, 03:39 AM:
 
quote: Bobby Henderson
Yes, this happened when the truck was trying to make it to a house fire. And the house burned down. I think some other fire trucks got to scene in time to roast some marshmallows over the smoldering embers.
Here's my question: couldn't the fire truck simply have backed up away from the pole and on to the fire?
 
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 10-24-2004, 04:12 AM:
 
Ask Dustin, he might know by now.
 
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 10-24-2004, 12:33 PM:
 
I guess Michael is one of those "4 out of 10" people who can't read! [Razz]
 
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 10-27-2004, 06:00 PM:
 
Stripping parts... [Big Grin]

 -

Someone must've been bored in the breadboarding lab. [Roll Eyes] More lewd LED and resistor pix here.
 
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 10-27-2004, 09:51 PM:
 
Paul,

You WAITED until this thread was up to page 69 before you uploaded that picture, didn't you?
You're starting to catch up to Phil!

[Big Grin]
 
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 10-27-2004, 10:01 PM:
 
I could claim intention, but I'd be lying. Those pix have Phil's pawprints all over them. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 10-27-2004, 10:09 PM:
 
HA! You guys make me sick with your lame innuendos!

I would NEVER wear 22-Meg shoes!

>>> Phil
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 10-28-2004, 12:04 AM:
 
 -

(no comment)
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-28-2004, 04:09 AM:
 
 -
TIP: You can skip Step 3!
 
Posted by Oscar Neundorfer (Member # 458) on 10-28-2004, 06:16 AM:
 
The kiwis I get at the store must already be mostly prepared.
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 10-28-2004, 06:16 PM:
 
The really fresh ones are red inside. [evil]
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 10-29-2004, 12:37 AM:
 
Not Political... Just funny!

 -

>>> Phil
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-29-2004, 12:58 AM:
 
 -
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 10-29-2004, 01:05 AM:
 
Oh SURE! Mr. Joe Moderator! ***YOU*** get to post a gif, but us low-life members cannot! What a bunch of horseshit!

I'll have YOU know that I have many cool gif things I want to post but can't.

FU!

>>> Phil
 
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 10-29-2004, 01:18 AM:
 
Although Joe's image, a file placed on the server over two years ago -- before self-uploading, blows away the current upload size restrictions, there's nothing stopping you from uploading GIF images. Unless Compuserve decides to sue you from patent infringement.
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 10-29-2004, 09:09 AM:
 
Do dial-up folks avoid this thread altogether?
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 10-29-2004, 09:30 AM:
 
quote: Steve Kraus
Do dial-up folks avoid this thread altogether?

File size is 475387 bytes.
 
Posted by Jim Spohn (Member # 1547) on 10-29-2004, 09:44 AM:
 
Phil... The field glasses that Bush is looking thru are a new design fitted to him, it's the new NELL system and of course the model made for him is called BUSH-NELL. What appears to be lens caps on the front of them are in reality red filters so that he can see images illuminated with the newly developed cyan searchlights. Just bringing you up to speed on technology...Jim
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 10-29-2004, 09:48 AM:
 
Daryl--didn't the GIF patent expire?
 
Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 10-29-2004, 12:20 PM:
 
 -
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-29-2004, 02:31 PM:
 
Talk about about bad Photoshopping!
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 10-29-2004, 02:35 PM:
 
Sheepishly posting this...

 -

A Sincere apology:

Joe, I was in error in my above smart-ass post about me not being able to upload gif pics here while you could.

Since you enlightened me in private email, I was able to follow your excellent instructions as how to accomplish this simple task.

Please accept my heart-felt apology.

Sincerely,

>>> Phil

(Gosh! I AM GOOD, huh? Yeah, like I really care?)
 
Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 10-29-2004, 03:28 PM:
 
Good job Phil. [thumbsup]
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-29-2004, 09:32 PM:
 
Where Nemo really ended up......
 -
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-29-2004, 10:24 PM:
 
*waits for Mike Olpin to come on and say that's not Nemo, but his dad... for the third time*

Waiting.....
 
Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 10-29-2004, 11:29 PM:
 
Nemo who ?
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 10-30-2004, 12:00 AM:
 
Captain Nemo. He ran the Nautilus before moving on to the Bowflex.

 -

How would you tell?
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-30-2004, 04:58 AM:
 
Well, there goes Joe again... he doesn't know how to read or has poor reading comprehension..... or some other problem....
I didn't say that WAS Nemo, only where Nemo ended up..... but there is a striking resemblance....
 -

Phil,
That thing with the sheep is also posted in this same thread down on the low 30's pages somewhere... sorry bud....

Mark
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 10-30-2004, 12:34 PM:
 
I don't understand; why can't it be Nemo? Is there something un-Nemo-like in the sushi I didn't notice?
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-30-2004, 12:46 PM:
 
Well, there's no telling if it really is Nemo or not so I can't claim that it IS nemo.... pretty simple but I would suspect that he ended up in a similar manner..... That Joe... jumpping to conclusions... I guess he just gets excited when he sees a friend of his end up that way.

Mark
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-30-2004, 03:41 PM:
 
Mark, you do know that's the 3rd time that pic of "Nemo Sushi" has been posted on this site, right?
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-30-2004, 03:59 PM:
 
Hey, Nemo is alot more popular than those sheep above...thats why it stands at 3-2 now.

Mark
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 10-30-2004, 05:34 PM:
 
Yeah but Mark, I had a reason to post that Sheep pic since it was a double entendre and went along with what I was saying in my post. I'm sorry you didn't "get it."

Perhaps you posted that Nemo thing for the 3rd time just to test our patience and/or moxie?

>>> Phil
 
Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 10-31-2004, 01:24 AM:
 
Actually, there are two variants of that image going around, I'm not sure which combination of the variants comprise the 3 posts. In one version, 6 orange and white striped sushi are served next to Marlin's head. On the variant most recently posted by Mark, the head is actually in one of the sushi rolls.

Allrighty, then...
 -
 -
 -

So, we can clearly see the sharper nose and lack of cheeks in both variants of the image proving that the pictured meal is a Marlin Roll and not a Nemo Roll.

EDIT: Just looked at the DVD. Forget the lower fin comparison. Whadaya want? I just did those from memory! Also, The arrow pointed at Marlin's other fin should read "Fully Developed RIGHT fin." My bad.

[ 10-31-2004, 09:31 AM: Message edited by: Mike Olpin ]
 
Posted by Rachel Gilardi (Member # 1016) on 10-31-2004, 08:37 AM:
 
That is pathetic! [Razz]
 
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 10-31-2004, 11:20 AM:
 
Nice character design sheet though. And from memory yet! [thumbsup] You should build a portfolio and start showing it around the 3D animation shops.

Me? I'm working on becoming an anime chara designer--my specialty will be designing female chara butts. [Cool]
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-31-2004, 01:56 PM:
 
Naw still no dice but great drawings Mike!! That still doesn't prove a thing as there is a shrinkage factor when a fish has been out of the water that long so it is still impossible to tell really which fish it is. You would have to do a DNA test to really know... thats the only way.....

Mark
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-31-2004, 07:12 PM:
 
 -
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 10-31-2004, 08:28 PM:
 
Happy Halloweenie!

 -

BTW: I agree with Paul, great job Mike! [beer]

>>> Phil
 
Posted by Greg Davis (Member # 2687) on 11-01-2004, 12:45 AM:
 
To the 1,348 girls at college parties who dressed up like a "fairy,"

 -

[fu] Forget Halloween. Dios de los Muertos kicks ass.
 
Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 11-01-2004, 06:50 AM:
 
Anyone have pics of these college girls that Greg is speaking of. I'm gonna need visual confirmation of the costumes in question. [beer]
 
Posted by Greg Davis (Member # 2687) on 11-01-2004, 02:18 PM:
 
I scored this one over at "It's a Small World."

 -
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 11-01-2004, 04:21 PM:
 
Here ya go, John...

 -

>>> Phil
 
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 11-02-2004, 03:04 AM:
 
quote: Scott Norwood
Daryl--didn't the GIF patent expire?
Unisys' US patent on LZW expired last summer. Their patents in other countries have been / are expiring this year.

Not that you'd use a GIF over a PNG anyway.
 
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 11-02-2004, 05:22 PM:
 
Lake Tahoe from Nevada, 7000 ft.
 -
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-02-2004, 06:59 PM:
 
Found this a while back still in the old DP-70 that ran it.......

 -
 
Posted by Ethan Harper (Member # 472) on 11-03-2004, 09:59 PM:
 
It's amazing to see what a difference 49 years can make.

 -

 -
 
Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 11-03-2004, 10:36 PM:
 
Are you insinuating something there Mr. Harper?
 
Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 11-03-2004, 10:43 PM:
 
Wow, Phil, that was tame! I was hiding in my closet afraid to look in this thread [Big Grin] .

--jhawk
 
Posted by Emma Tomiak (Member # 1862) on 11-03-2004, 11:09 PM:
 
ACK! That's frightening! [Eek!]
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-03-2004, 11:11 PM:
 
Common now... Thats June Cleevers guide......
 
Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 11-03-2004, 11:16 PM:
 
I'm more concerned about what the kids are doing.
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-03-2004, 11:33 PM:
 
Am I the only one who thinks that was objectionably lame even for 1955? Make dinner, etc., okay sure. But I think...

...would have been troubling to all but the meekest 1955 wife. Or should have been.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-04-2004, 12:35 AM:
 
It looks like the kid on the left is unzipping the pants of the other kid. And by the looks of things, the father is probably holding his own crotch. Who knows what the mother has in that pot on the stove... probably a HUMAN HEAD! This is a sick, sick family indeed. The whole house should be set on fire to rid the world of their evil.
 
Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 11-04-2004, 06:58 AM:
 
I think the "Good Wife" article is a fake.

The only reference I can find to a "Housekeeping Monthly" magazine is in regard to this article. Certainly this publication printed something other than this.

Why would a monthly magazine use weekly dates?

Also, a number of "Urban Legend" websites (such as snopes) list this as probably being fake.

It seems to be very similar to an article called "How To Be A Good Wife" from an anonymous '50's textbook.

quote:
1. Have dinner ready: Plan ahead, even the night before, to have a delicious meal - on time. This is a way of letting him know that you have been thinking about him, and are concerned about his needs. Most men are hungry when they come home and the prospects of a good meal are part of the warm welcome needed.

2. Prepare yourself: Take 15 minutes to rest so you will be refreshed when he arrives. Touch up your makeup, put a ribbon in your hair and be fresh looking. He has just been with a lot of work-weary people. Be a little gay and a little more interesting. His boring day may need a lift.

3. Clear away the clutter. Make one last trip through the main part of the house just before your husband arrives, gathering up school books, toys, paper, etc. Then run a dust cloth over the tables. Your husband will feel he has reached a haven of rest and order, and it will give you a lift, too.

4. Prepare the children: Take a few minutes to wash the children's hands and faces if they are small, comb their hair, and if necessary, change their clothes. They are little treasures and he would like to see them playing the part.

5. Minimize the noise: At the time of his arrival, eliminate all noise of washer, dryer, dishwasher or vacuum. Try to encourage the children to be quiet. Be happy to see him. Greet him with a warm smile and be glad to see him.

6. Some Don'ts: Don't greet him with problems or complaints. Don't complain if he's late for dinner. Count this as minor compared with what he might have gone through that day.

7. Make him comfortable: Have him lean back in a comfortable chair or suggest he lie down in the bedroom. Have a cool or warm drink ready for him. Arrange his pillow and offer to take off his shoes. Speak in a low, soft, soothing and pleasant voice. Allow him to relax and unwind.

8. Listen to him: You may have a dozen things to tell him, but the moment of his arrival is not the time. Let him talk first.

9. Make the evening his: Never complain if he does not take you out to dinner or to other places of entertainment; instead, try to understand his world of strain and pressure, his need to be home and relax.

10. The goal: Try to make your home a place of peace and order where your husband can relax.

I may spring these on some of my female friends and watch them get angrier and angrier as they get down the page.
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-04-2004, 11:58 AM:
 
Can't find it on the LOC catalog.
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-04-2004, 12:22 PM:
 
Likely a hoax:

http://www.snopes.com/language/document/goodwife.htm

quote:
Additional information: An image purported to be a digitized photocopy of the 13 May 1955 edition of a magazine called Housekeeping Monthly circulates with this message, but the graphic is a fake, created by simply adding text around a 1950s-era magazine graphic. (The image itself even bears an "Advertising Archives" legend along its side.)



 
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 11-04-2004, 12:23 PM:
 
Looks like something my roommate could have written. He is definitely of the old school that says "keep 'em barefoot and pregnant on the farm." He also believes we'd all be better off if women didn't drive, didn't work for wages outside the home, and didn't vote. Funny, the only dates he gets are with strippers, and only the ones with lots of mental baggage at that. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 11-04-2004, 05:41 PM:
 
quote: Jennifer Pan
Are you insinuating something there Mr. Harper?

Hmmm... I don't know, Jen. Many of the points there make very good sense. I'll have to think about it a bit...

OBTW: Yes, I'm divorced... [Wink]

 -

>>> Phil

Edit: Corrected spelling typo...

[ 11-05-2004, 06:28 PM: Message edited by: Phil Hill ]
 
Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 11-05-2004, 01:06 AM:
 
That cat is so cute. I can just watch it walk back and forth all day... [Cool]
 
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 11-05-2004, 01:29 AM:
 
quote: Mark Lensenmayer
I think the "Good Wife" article is a fake.
Maybe it is, but I think it reflects the spririt of the time very well and I am sure you might easily find similar stuff in actual magazines of the 50s. There was a hilarious film in Germany in the late 80s or so
 -
which was put together entirely from commercials of the 50s. It showed the exact same idea of the role of the housewife as in the article. "The 2 most important questions in the life of a woman: what should I cook and what should I wear?"
 
Posted by Ethan Harper (Member # 472) on 11-05-2004, 03:08 AM:
 
Why is Felix the Cat walking back and forth?

Also, to Jen. Thanks for recognizing me as Mr. Harper and don't you forget that. It should also be Mr. E-Dawggg to you to as well.
 
Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 11-05-2004, 03:17 PM:
 
Whatever... Ethan.
 
Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 11-05-2004, 03:55 PM:
 
Jen,

It's only because he his Phiggity... Phiggity.. Phat Yo...
 
Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 11-05-2004, 04:00 PM:
 
Yeah, so people keep saying...
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 11-05-2004, 05:10 PM:
 
My grandmother had a late edition of Mrs. Beeton's Household Management, which is often said to be the definitive guide to being a housewife in Victorian Britain. Perhaps surprisingly, it contradicts a lot of the stereotypes. The basic idea it puts forward is that the husband might be the master of his world when he's away at work, but once he steps back into your house he'd better tow the line or else. The section on diet contains a lengthy tract on the need to dissuade your husband from drinking and smoking too much; another chapter talks about how important it is to make sure he has regular, meaningful contact with the children, and not to allow him to disappear into the 'smoking room' after dinner without having first done his bit as a father!

The book as a whole challenges a lot of stereotypes about the role of women in late Victorian and Edwardian Britain. In short, it argues that running a domestic household is a profession and a career in itself - an important point in the days before supermarkets, frozen foods and all the other technological delights which enable me to survive without being married existed!
 
Posted by James B. Openshaw (Member # 1310) on 11-05-2004, 05:37 PM:
 
A Dirty Harry & Harry Potter Fan dared me to design this a couple of months ago. The head looks like crap. But, oh well.

 -
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 11-05-2004, 06:25 PM:
 
quote: Ethan Harper
Why is Felix the Cat walking back and forth?

JFC Ethan! I'm really surprised you asked that question! I "used" to think you were a cool and smart guy... but I guess I'll have to re-think all that.

"Felix" is pacing in my post to help illustrate that many people pace while they think....

It is a sad day in hell when I have to explain such simple things as that.

>>> Phil
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-05-2004, 06:28 PM:
 
Look at how he's holding his ass. Obviously a bad case of 'roids.

 -
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 11-05-2004, 06:39 PM:
 
Hahahahaha that's too funny, Steve!

But, I think he's just clasping his hands behind his back while he paces and thinks about Ethan's stupid question. [evil] [Razz] [Big Grin]

>>> Phil
 
Posted by Ethan Harper (Member # 472) on 11-05-2004, 08:56 PM:
 
Ethan is very Smart and Hot!
 
Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 11-05-2004, 09:16 PM:
 
Right...........................
 
Posted by Ethan Harper (Member # 472) on 11-05-2004, 09:26 PM:
 
See, I told you.
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 11-06-2004, 12:07 AM:
 
Ethan is Smart? Oh PULEEZE! I will agree with the "hot" part especially with his blue bike , blue shirt, blue pants, ...I'd bet he's even wearing blue underwear! C'mon Ethan...show us!

BTW: Did I mention blue is my favorite color?

So Jen, what are you smokin' over there in AZ? I-10 or I-40 stuff?

I'll be heading back to TX on I-10 in a few days... [Wink]

>>> Phil
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-06-2004, 12:34 AM:
 
 -
 
Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 11-06-2004, 12:35 AM:
 
I was being sarcastic Phil. But it's actually I-60 that I frequent.
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 11-06-2004, 12:38 AM:
 
OK Joe, I take back EVERYTHING negative I have ever said about you in the last 5 years... That gif is too cool! [beer]

BTW: About my thoughts about you...I lie a lot!

Jen: WTF is I-60? It must be way up north like in North Dakota or some other God forsaken place that snows like hell!

>>> Phil
 
Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 11-06-2004, 12:46 AM:
 
The stuff you only get in the Phoenix Area. Drop by and try it sometime. Its more rock instead of the "other" stuff. I really dislike the cold or anyplace that snows frequently... So I would never be up there.
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 11-06-2004, 12:56 AM:
 
quote: Jennifer Pan
I really dislike the cold or anyplace that snows frequently... So I would never be up there.

Yeah! Me too! [beer]

>>> Phil
 
Posted by Matthew Peters (Member # 1495) on 11-06-2004, 02:23 AM:
 
A Pianola AKA Player Piano

Now thats a Real digital intrument

 -

 -
 
Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 11-06-2004, 02:49 AM:
 
Pianos are sexy. [thumbsup] i.e. The guy from Coldplay, Chris Martin... the guy from Something Corporate, Andrew McMahon. OMG, the way they play the piano... makes me love music so much.
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 11-06-2004, 07:27 AM:
 
 -

Lunch time! Mogzilla stakes out a birds' nest in the garden. A couple of minutes after this pic was taken, the sparrow population of North Yorkshire was in decline...
 
Posted by Joshua Lott (Member # 240) on 11-06-2004, 07:50 AM:
 
quote:
quote: Jennifer Pan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I really dislike the cold or anyplace that snows frequently... So I would never be up there.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Boy I really feel like an outcast... [Frown]

Here is a pic on part of my property. It is currently 1 degree F.

 -
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-06-2004, 11:16 AM:
 
quote:
WTF is I-60? It must be way up north like in North Dakota or some other God forsaken place that snows like hell!

If the I meant Interstate such a road would be an East/West route located somewhere between I-40 and I-70 which would put it just south of the middle latitude of the country, say along the state lines that align with Kansas' southern boundary.

But there is no Interstate-60. Apparently a local designation of US Highway 60 in parts of AZ. There really can't be a real I-60 interstate without a lot of renaming because federal regs preclude having an I number the same as a US number in the same state. (Of course, those same regs say an interstate should be grade separated, limited accesss, etc. yet Wyoming's I-180 has intersections and traffic lights. Yup, waivers.)
 
Posted by Dan Lyons (Member # 1454) on 11-06-2004, 01:58 PM:
 
 -

Looks like this will all be gone in a few months. [uhoh]
Fox Fullerton
 
Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 11-06-2004, 02:09 PM:
 
My apologizes [Frown] ... I guess I was smoking way too much of the US H-60 to actually discern the differences between the meaning of the names. I had a feeling it was called something else. Oh well...
 
Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 11-06-2004, 03:05 PM:
 
Just an observation here. This is "Upload your random pictures". So, does anybody upload a "LEGAL" picture here anymore? [Smile] Other than Joe, of course. [Wink]
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-06-2004, 04:12 PM:
 
Legal in what sense? Copyright? Most of these are self-taken.

Seems like lots of businesses refer to being just off I-60 though if they give a map it's just 60 in a US Highway shield. I don't know the explanation.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-06-2004, 05:20 PM:
 
John needs to read the FAQ in order to get the pictures to display for him.

Steve, we have I-25 which strictly runs North/South.
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-06-2004, 08:07 PM:
 
Yes, an odd number = North/South. I'm not sure I understand your point.

I live about 10 miles west of I-65, 3 miles east of I-57 and perhaps 5 miles south of I-80. The next even numbered interstate (that is, east/west) to the south would be I-74 about 105 miles away.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-06-2004, 10:33 PM:
 
You said:
quote: Some guy
If the I meant Interstate such a road would be an East/West route
but failed to elaborate what the odd and even numbers mean. In your context it sounds like an Interstate can only run horizontally. You failed at conveying your message. You are BANNED for 2 minutes.
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-06-2004, 11:19 PM:
 
Just so. Interstates must run horizontally. It's an immutable law of the universe. Vertical just doesn't work.

 -

This tower is about 25 miles straight south of downtown Chicago. It was part of a chain of microwave relay towers stretching all the way to New York City, spaced about every 25-30 miles (line of sight). This was the original microwave link set up by AT&T Long Lines in the late 1940's and was how live network television was first carried cross country. Eventually microwave relay stations spanned the country carrying TV and thousands of phone calls simultaneously.

Originally there was a pair of microwave antenna horns atop it facing north and another pair facing east. I think they could have saved some miles by going southeast from Chicago cutting across Lake Michigan but perhaps there were issues with microwave propagation over water. I believe the reason for erecting towers such as this rather than the later type of steel laticework tower was that the early microwave equipment needed to be close to the antenna instead of on the ground at the end of a long waveguide (pipe) but was also too large (and probably in need of frequent maintenance) to install right at the dish. So a tower like this could have rooms inside it that were close enough. Other towers in the chain looked similar.

The old antennas came down long ago and there were some round ones for a time. Now I think the tower is relegated to being a convenient place to put a cellular relay. I don't know if AT&T still owns it.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-07-2004, 12:41 PM:
 
I live one mile to the west of I-44. It's numbered like an East-West route. However, this Interstate is very much a north-south style route from its terminus in Wichita Falls, TX up to Oklahoma City. It is pretty weird to get on northbound I-44 with it signed "east".

I should note this segment was not originally part of I-44 and was designated as such in 1983. The original route, running from OKC up to St. Louis is one of those wierd diagonal routes.

There is a very slim chance of an opportunity developing to rename this Interstate to "I-33". The I-35 corridor in Texas is way over capacity. TxDOT is building the TX-130 tollway to run sort of parallel to I-35. But then there is work to improve US-281. It will eventually be at least four laned from San Antonio to Wichita Falls. But some in Texas want it to be a completely limited access Interstate style route. Not just for the development happening in the area, but also for military transport purposes as well (one of the original purposes for the road system). Fort Hood in Kileen, Sheppard AFB in Wichita Falls and Fort Sill here in Lawton would stand to benefit. Anyway, such a concept would work for an "I-33" route from San Antonio to Oklahoma City, providing a western "relief route" for long distance I-35 traffic. As I said, there is only a very slim chance of that ever happening. There's a better chance for US-287 to be converted into "I-32" from Amarillo to Fort Worth, or I-44 extended farther south as a NAFTA route to Del Rio, TX.
 
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 11-07-2004, 01:44 PM:
 
That's like the Cross-Bronx Expressway in NY. It's actually I-95 N/S, but in the city from whence it came, they still refer to it in E/W terms. Confusing for truckers who ain't used to it, thinking they're going S, but hear a traffic report saying W. "Whaa?!"
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-07-2004, 02:10 PM:
 
Tim, that whole area of I-95 can be very confusing for anyone not familiar with the area. In fact, I would say it may be the most confusing maze of superhighway in the country.

In the space of about 7 miles, you have the terminus of the NJ Turnpike, the I-80 terminus with dual local lanes and dual HOV lanes, the US 9 / Pallisades Parkway interchange (with separate 9 and 9W exits, exits for US 1 and US 46), the George Washington Bridge, The Henry Hudson Parkway (NY 9A) at the end of the bridge and exits for Harlem River Drive and I-87 on either side of the Harlem River. You get to breate a little and then go into the mess of Interchanges on the eastern end of the Bronx: I-895, Bronx River Pkwy and that clusterf**k of I-278, I-678 and I-295 happening at once. A little I-695 thingie is thrown in for good measure.

Also, those roads are not wide, expansive style freeways like you find in parts Texas or California. They're crammed into some tight spaces with tight, slow speed, corkscrewing exits just coming up out of nowhere. You miss one turn in this bunch and you'll have to drive at least a couple miles to find a good turning around point.
 
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 11-07-2004, 05:10 PM:
 
 -
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-07-2004, 05:26 PM:
 
Buckingham Fountain, in Chicago's lakefront Grant Park. Not a gift from the Queen, as some seem to think.

The red building (with Sears Tower far off to its left) is the CNA Building. Five years ago a window cracked and a shard of glass struck and killed a woman on the ground. All the windows have been or are being replaced. But heads up anyway.
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-07-2004, 06:37 PM:
 
Interestingly Buckingham Fountain is remotely controled by a firm in St. Louis. Donno why... I guess they just got the contract...

Mark
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-07-2004, 07:06 PM:
 
 -

Downtown Denver, near where I do video editing and DVD authoring.
 
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 11-07-2004, 07:11 PM:
 
Look out, Joe! There's some really big dude taking a picture of you taking a picture of those buildings!
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-07-2004, 07:12 PM:
 
That's just God. He wanted to get my mug shot to show everyone else what NOT to be like.
 
Posted by John T. Hendrickson, Jr (Member # 849) on 11-07-2004, 07:16 PM:
 
"John needs to read the FAQ in order to get the pictures to display for him."

John read, and truth be told, John doesn't understand all the fine points of the computer world. John does understand that he does not want to screw around with his firewall, so John will have to forgo viewing all the pretty pictures in the Upload your random pictures post.
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-08-2004, 09:18 PM:
 
Mark, I dont think that's true anymore. It used to be controlled by a computer in Atlanta but it's probably local by now.
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 11-09-2004, 09:25 PM:
 
...and behind this door, your NEW home theatre...

 -

BTW: The hell with the kids! I voted NO on RCS!

>>> Phil
 
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 11-09-2004, 11:21 PM:
 
Iowa State Capitol
 -
 
Posted by James Faber (Member # 2796) on 11-10-2004, 12:38 AM:
 
I live in Des Moines, and I've always wondered if our state capital is special, or if all state capitals look like that.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-10-2004, 01:33 AM:
 
They pretty much all look like that, more or less.
 
Posted by John Hegel (Member # 628) on 11-10-2004, 01:50 AM:
 
Did you know...

If you took all the sheets of gold leaf off the dome, and waded them up, they would fit in the palm of your hand.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-10-2004, 02:03 AM:
 
I knew that about Colorado's capital.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-10-2004, 06:00 PM:
 
quote: Joe Redifer
They pretty much all look like that, more or less
Nope. Here is the North Dakota state capitol building. It is the only skyscraper in the entire state.

 -
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 11-10-2004, 06:09 PM:
 
Gosh Mike, that is ugly!

It looks like a giant dildo or a multi-story prison!

The so-called architect should be shot! How disgusting and just plain BLAH!

>>> Phil
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-10-2004, 06:15 PM:
 
quote: Mike
Nope.
I said PRETTY MUCH, not all.

PS - North Dakota sucks. It only has one skyscraper. The whole place should be carpet bombed, buried, and then rebuilt with skyscapers covering every inch of the state!
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 11-10-2004, 06:26 PM:
 
quote: Hot Joey
PS - North Dakota sucks...
While I certainly agree with you Joe, especially since it SNOWS and is COLD up there in ND; perhaps Josh would disagree with you. [Razz]

I cannot imagine ANYONE liking the cold, dreary days that winter brings to the north... especially if ya don't have someone to snuggle up with in front of the fireplace and/or in bed! [evil]

>>> Phil
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-10-2004, 07:33 PM:
 
Hey I agree with you guys...that's why I live in Montana, where we have a much cooler capitol building:

 -

Here's the inside of the main lobby.

 -

Can't argue with you about the cold weather though Phil. It sucks. But when Spring arrives, we appreciate it a lot more than you Sutherners. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-10-2004, 08:21 PM:
 
Phil-
I don't think Josh is in Horth dakota right now. I think he is at Harvard, Yale, and MIT (showing jHAwk who's boss). So he can wait until the state is covered with skyscrapers, and then he can move back when the state is finally acceptable.
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 11-12-2004, 06:36 PM:
 
Joe, WTF RU talkin' 'bout? Your post made NO sense!

Anyway, another cool pic:

 -

>>> Phil
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-12-2004, 06:39 PM:
 
Just because I don't know how to spell "North" is no reason to bag on me. My education is progressing and one day I promise I will be able to spell most of the states.
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 11-12-2004, 06:47 PM:
 
quote: Joe Redifer
Just because I don't know how to spell "North" is no reason to bag on me.
YES it is!

>>> Phil
 
Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 11-12-2004, 09:55 PM:
 
Phil, oh great wise one..

Joe's text of to bag is not to be interpreted as Tea-bag.. [Smile]
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-14-2004, 08:47 PM:
 
 -

Arri 765 (65mm / 5-perf). One night last week in Chicago.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-14-2004, 08:59 PM:
 
What were they filming?

I'll bet that whole movie isn't in 5/65mm. It seems like that type of camera gets used only for high resolution live action plates as part of a visual effects shot.
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-14-2004, 09:32 PM:
 
Sadly, just something for a show that will be ultimately seen on a videowall. He showed me on the video assist monitor how they were only going to use a small horizontal slice of the frame. Like maybe the videowall would be just 2 or 3 high times many wide. Maybe each cube gets a piece of the image the size of a 16mm frame or less. Spiderman II shot 65mm here last year.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-14-2004, 11:08 PM:
 
quote: Stevey
 -
See that dude in the green cap? He is the reason why Chicago is hated by the rest of America.
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-14-2004, 11:57 PM:
 
What makes you sure he's even from Chicago?
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-15-2004, 12:12 PM:
 
He's in Chicago in that pic. That's all that matters.
 
Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 11-15-2004, 05:13 PM:
 
so, let me see if i understand this. you hate chicago because some guy with a green cap is there. after he flies back to l.a. you will hate l.a., at least if you see photographic evidence. who is this man?

carl
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-15-2004, 07:44 PM:
 
No, all of America hates Chicago (not just me) just because of that guy. After he flies out of Chicago, all of America still hates Chicago. It's pretty simple and quite logical.
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-15-2004, 08:50 PM:
 
I think you're just jealous of the ultimate widescreen motion image recording machine.

And the green hat.
 
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 11-16-2004, 12:27 AM:
 
 -

Only up to 128 meg though. Like the real thing--looks good, expensive, too small. [Smile]
 
Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 11-16-2004, 01:46 AM:
 
And Dammit! That's not Nemo either! [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 11-16-2004, 02:08 AM:
 
I hate Chicago because of Ohare International. Hopefully never have to fly through there again on a layover.
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-16-2004, 10:34 AM:
 
I agree about O'Hare. There are a few nice parts but mostly it's a throwback to the 60's at a time when so many airports are efficient, nice to look at, and have ample shopping and conveniences. Schiphol (Amsterdam) for example has an entire shopping mall. Hopefully O'Hare will be rebuilt in the not too distant future (plans are underway) and that will relieve the congestion problem (also helped by a 3rd airport in the area).
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 11-16-2004, 07:08 PM:
 
Again! Just as ya think you've seen everything, something comes along to...

 -

>>> Phil
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-16-2004, 07:18 PM:
 
I'd love to see the "As Seen on TV" ad for that one. They could show a guy peeing without Jonny Glow and his stream is going all over the place... the floor, the walls, the ceiling, etc. It'd like be handling an out of control fire hose. Then in the morning his wife comes in and slips on it and has to clean it up. Over breakfast she hits the guy on the head with a newspaper and says "I told you to get Jonny Glow!" and then the guy looks at the camera and shrugs.
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 11-16-2004, 07:36 PM:
 
Joe! Too funny! You should produce that commercial you described for your "reel"!

>>> Phil
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-16-2004, 08:10 PM:
 
Eh...you guys need to think outside the box...er...bowl. Compliment that product with a pill which causes the pee to glow and then they can really see. What's night shooting without tracer rounds?
 
Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 11-16-2004, 08:25 PM:
 
Steve, I wonder if not only the pee would glow in the dark but the "other" that squirts out would glow too.
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 11-16-2004, 08:36 PM:
 
OK, I can see a Government Study Grant request coming up here...

Let's see the "requestor list": Joe? Steve? Jen? Richard? Jason?

I'll do the study for a grant of not less than $1.2 mil... I have MANY expenses!

BTW Jen, I don't know if "IT" glows afterwards... BUT! **I** sure do! Hubba Hubba!

[ 11-16-2004, 10:19 PM: Message edited by: Phil Hill ]
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-16-2004, 11:26 PM:
 
Well Jen, it would be color coded just like it is now.
 
Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 11-16-2004, 11:33 PM:
 
Oh, interesting. Hmmm.... Good to know, good to know. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 11-17-2004, 12:47 AM:
 
I'm sure Peter North could tell us about whether it glows or not. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 11-17-2004, 06:53 PM:
 
quote: Phil Hill
BTW Jen, I don't know if "IT" glows afterwards...
It does. Under a blacklight.
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 11-17-2004, 07:41 PM:
 
Oh my! Soooo many "experts" here... I'm embarrassed that I don't have any "first hand" data.

Jen sent me a duplicate of her bookmark:

 -

Based on size, I marked the 1 in 40 chance and sent it back to her...
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-17-2004, 09:22 PM:
 
Kinda meaningless without a scale. On this 17" LCD screen Phil you're only a wee 4½ inches!
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-17-2004, 09:30 PM:
 
Thats funny Phil.... I'm here at the Sun Valley Lodge with my computer plugged into the rooms new 50" flat screen TV and it still looks small...... its only a wee 2-1/2 inches on the screen [Big Grin]

Steve, are you sure your screen is set to the right number of pixels or are you adding some in to cover for Phil?

Mark
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 11-17-2004, 09:52 PM:
 
My My MY! Aren't we all too funny here tonight? I make an innocent post and get called out for having what yous assume is my tiny penis.

Remember, it's not the size that counts, it's how ya use it!

However, if it REALLY matters to y'all, the "1 in 40" personally represents 8.5 inches, and unlike me, it's thin. [Smile]

Please calibrate your screens accordantly!
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-17-2004, 09:56 PM:
 
Mark, the distance spans about 450 pixels. My display is at the screen's native 1280 x 1024 and the active area is 10 5/8" (10.625) tall. 450/1024 is about 44%. 44% x 10.625 = 4.675" or about what one sees by measuring.

Phil, I think you determined your place on the scale the reverse way by lots of personal comparisons.
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 11-17-2004, 10:11 PM:
 
Here ya go, Steve. Just for your screen. A "scaled" version that places 1 in 40 at about 8.5 inches.

 -
 
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 11-17-2004, 10:31 PM:
 
And that's why Phil failed the vision portion of his last flight physical--bad depth perception. [evil]
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-17-2004, 10:42 PM:
 
Must be the IWERKs versus IMAX difference because it's still wrong! 8.5"/10.625" = 80%. 80% of 1024 pixels is 819. Your new version is about 666 across the necessary distance. But please don't do another; we get the idea.
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 11-17-2004, 10:53 PM:
 
Hmmm.. Well, I guess the bottom line Steve, you need a good monitor... or you just don't "get it"
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-17-2004, 11:24 PM:
 
Hey I gave you the specs. You were out of compliance. [Eek!]
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-17-2004, 11:32 PM:
 
Hey, the ruler doesn't lie, regardless of monitor. Right Phil!!! [Razz]
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-18-2004, 12:09 AM:
 
Damn, on my 1680x1050 monitor, it is telling me that I am damn huge! Of course it is not very comfortable getting up so close to the screen and I'm sure my monitor is not ready to "go this far" with me yet. [Razz]
 
Posted by Jason Miller (Member # 2341) on 11-18-2004, 08:06 AM:
 
speaking of up close and personal...
 -
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-18-2004, 10:26 AM:
 
Cute. Too bad it's fake.
 
Posted by Jonathan Worthing (Member # 803) on 11-19-2004, 03:36 AM:
 
 -
 
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 11-19-2004, 12:02 PM:
 
 -
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 11-19-2004, 06:11 PM:
 
Mmmm... Neon! Cool!


 -
 
Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 11-20-2004, 01:35 AM:
 
Sunset a couple of days ago after having a bunch of rain

 -

My new Christie CP2000 (3-Chip DLP 2K projector)
Existing Film Console on left (SLC-45R)
New playback system in sound rack (EVS CineStore Solo)

 -

Projector is putting 14fl on screen. 100+ ft throw, 60ft wide screen
 
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 11-20-2004, 01:51 AM:
 
 -
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-20-2004, 11:30 AM:
 
Paul: Is it soup* yet?

* film-like
 
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 11-20-2004, 12:38 PM:
 
Nice shot of some cumulus mammatus there Paul. Those bag formations hanging below a cumulonimbus cloud indicate severe turbulence for anyone that tries to fly through it. Nasty stuff.

Closet cat...

 -

[ 11-20-2004, 06:15 PM: Message edited by: Paul Mayer ]
 
Posted by Bob Peticolas (Member # 328) on 11-20-2004, 06:56 PM:
 
Here's a shot from a radio tower on top of a small mountain looking across the valley towards another moutain range. This was about 9am on a foggy day. There IS a city under those clouds!

 -
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-20-2004, 07:01 PM:
 
The mountain range in the background looks like the one just east of Las Cruces. Even if I were correct, I'm not sure if that would be Las Cruces under those clouds. Depending on the vantage point, that tower could be overlooking Alamogordo.
 
Posted by Bob Peticolas (Member # 328) on 11-20-2004, 07:09 PM:
 
Bobby, you are absolutely right! The shot was taken due east from the top of "A" Mountain towards the Organs. The Talavera subdivision and other areas are under the clouds.

You've been here before. [beer]
bob
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-20-2004, 08:13 PM:
 
There are wierd people that visit our National Parks.......

 -

 -
 
Posted by Matthew Bailey (Member # 601) on 11-20-2004, 09:07 PM:
 
What's the correct number in the image code? I thought it was 0503,but it's not working.
 
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 11-20-2004, 11:18 PM:
 
You copy and paste the code that it tells you.
 
Posted by Ben Holley (Member # 2247) on 11-21-2004, 12:43 AM:
 
 -

if i was there i would have put on a blindfold and hit him with a stick
 
Posted by Dan Lyons (Member # 1454) on 11-21-2004, 12:58 AM:
 
[Eek!]
WTF??? Those damn kids must be smoking dope! [evil]
 
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 11-21-2004, 09:44 PM:
 
 -
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-21-2004, 10:40 PM:
 
At first glance, I thought that photo was taken in Atlantic City. But then Atlantic City doesn't have any fountains like the one at Bellagio in Las Vegas.
 
Posted by Matthew Bailey (Member # 601) on 11-22-2004, 02:28 AM:
 
Some of the stuff I like  -
. I have my friend's permission to post it for viewing only.
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-22-2004, 09:44 PM:
 
 -

I hope James Bond doesn't mind being seen with anything less than ISCO Blue Stars & Kinoton or Norelco projectors but mind you this was quite a few years back! [Wink]

Hard to beat that light source though.
 
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-22-2004, 10:10 PM:
 
And then the thunderstorms came... [Smile]
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-22-2004, 11:45 PM:
 
No no...you're thinking of Dolby. It never rains on USL gear.
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 11-23-2004, 12:21 AM:
 
"Now showing on our new wet-gate projector..."

Kidding aside... cool pic!
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-23-2004, 06:06 AM:
 
quote: Phil Hill
"Now showing on our new wet-gate projector..."

Kodak (Dr. Fred Kolb) actually presented a technical paper and demonstration of a total immersion wet gate projector at a SMPTE Conference in the early 1960's. It completely covered base-side and superficial emulsion-side scratches, and greatly improved focus stability. The drawback was the use of chlorinated solvent in the booth:

"Liquid Gate for the Projection of Motion Picture Film", Frederick Kolb, John Turner, Philip Ripson, Eric Yavitz, Journal of the SMPTE, February 1962, Volume 71, pp 100-105

[ 11-23-2004, 07:15 AM: Message edited by: John Pytlak ]
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 11-23-2004, 06:10 AM:
 
A nice lungful of 1,1,1,trichloroethane... that could get pleasantly high... [Big Grin]

I wonder if there've been any documented cases of Filmguard sniffing addiction?
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-23-2004, 07:24 AM:
 
Have you read some of the posts around here? How much evidence do you need? [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-23-2004, 08:23 AM:
 
quote: Steve Guttag
And then the thunderstorms came...

No but the bugs were really bad and loved the light source!

Hey, for a couple of years before that shot we used a Motiograph model K and Lum-Ex lamphouse.... so this was a huge upgrade to the "Henry's Farm Outoor 4th Of July Screening Series". I think that was my first portable sound rack sitting in that photo.... Also, just on the other side of that building was a full size pig being roasted! Ahhhh, great fun that was! We did this four years in a row....

Mark
 
Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 11-25-2004, 02:17 AM:
 
Does anyone know a reputable lab that does processing via mail & can push-process 35mm print film?

Got in a tight spot, need a roll pushed one stop, took it to Target to mail off to the Kodak lab, & find that KODAK no longer will push a roll! Kofreakindak! No longer push! Forget DLP, this now signals the end of film!

Only one area lab still would still push a roll, & their printer got cuisinarted in the hurricane.

 -

Crumbs, this scanner makes prints look horribly out of focus.
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-25-2004, 10:50 PM:
 
 -

B&W CRT (TV picture tube) sitting on a carpeted surface with a real picture displayed. No Photoshop. In fact, it's pre digital.
 
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 11-26-2004, 12:17 AM:
 
A reflection from another television?
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-26-2004, 12:21 AM:
 
Good idea but no. Actual picture on that screen.
 
Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 11-26-2004, 12:33 AM:
 
It has to be one of the following:

1. A picture projected onto the CRT face

or

2. The CRT is in just the right position to not show the yoke and HV lead, and the base connections to the tube neck are under the carpet (note that you cannot really see the base pins on the end of the neck of the tube)

-Aaron
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-26-2004, 12:40 AM:
 
Well, to quote David Spade, go to ReNO...play some kiNO...in the casiNO!
 
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 11-26-2004, 01:59 AM:
 
Reno sucks.
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-26-2004, 07:58 AM:
 
Thats really easy to do and it looks like a small Sony or Panasonic CRT! Here's a photo looking at the back of the phosphor screen.... BTW: That other CRT looks weak.

 -

Reno? There's plenty to do in Reno that is NOT casino related.... you just have to kow where to go ... what to see. It hardly sucks!

Mark
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 11-26-2004, 03:44 PM:
 
quote: Mark
Thats really easy to do and it looks like a small Sony or Panasonic CRT!
So Mark, how'd they do it?
 
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 11-26-2004, 07:01 PM:
 
 -
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 11-26-2004, 07:09 PM:
 
But Adam, how can this be an award-winning theatre? It seems the "sound" is cutoff at the low end...
 
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-26-2004, 07:42 PM:
 
Phil,

That is so the patrons in the other theatres won't be disturbed during loud boomy passages!

Steve
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-26-2004, 08:05 PM:
 
Yea, the Dells Theatre..... last time I was in there they only had one projector running hour reels. They changed reels in the middle of the show!

Phil, All they did was route the wires under the carpet...... P.O.C.! Looks to me like it has pretty low emmision.....

Mark
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 11-26-2004, 08:34 PM:
 
But Mark, that's what I thought and Aaron said that too. Steve said that was not the method.
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-26-2004, 10:27 PM:
 
Everyone finished guessing?
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-26-2004, 10:36 PM:
 
No! Don't give in yet.....!

Possibly a hologram projected onto the surface of the crt....?

How large was the CRT?

Mark
 
Posted by Kyle McEachern (Member # 2250) on 11-26-2004, 10:47 PM:
 
Burned-in image from having it having been on the same image too long! [Razz]
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-26-2004, 11:14 PM:
 
Size: I don't recall. At least 12" or so I think.

The image you see is generated by the phosphor of the tube, not projected or reflected.
 
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 11-27-2004, 01:28 AM:
 
Who cares? Someone call the fire department!

 -

Note to theater staff: (1) You do not need to risk the lives of the people in the last set of shows in order to leave 3 minutes earlier. (2) Chains are useless when the hallway doors aren't closed all the way.
 
Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 11-27-2004, 01:41 AM:
 
Adam, is that from a theatre in Wisconsin Dells? I've heard they have a pretty nice multiplex there now, any pictures from that?
 
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 11-27-2004, 02:21 AM:
 
The last time I was in Wisconsin Dells, they just had the drive-in. That was 2002. I haven't seen the Star Cinema yet.
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-27-2004, 12:43 PM:
 
This one is for my bud Steve Guttag.

 -

AWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-27-2004, 12:49 PM:
 
Interracial and Homer-sekshul...and coming from a Red State, too!
 
Posted by Jon Miller (Member # 163) on 11-27-2004, 01:17 PM:
 
 -
Awww?
 
Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 11-27-2004, 01:31 PM:
 
quote: Jon Miller
Awww?
No no no nonnonononononooooo....

its more like:

 -

[Smile] [Smile] [Smile] AAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Smile] [Smile] [Smile]

(not Photoshopped either, Riggi used to actually crawl onto Maximus and lay on him when she was a kitten...) [Big Grin]

-Aaron
 
Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 11-27-2004, 03:38 PM:
 
Steve K.: some trick with capacitance?

--jhawk
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-27-2004, 05:33 PM:
 
Capacitance would work only if it were a storage type CRT. And then you'd still need filament, focus grid potential and high voltage to make it work.

Steve, is this an actual electron beam scanned picture(from inside the tube) on the screen?

Mark
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-27-2004, 06:12 PM:
 
Okay...here is the solution.

I said it had not been Photoshopped or other digital trickery. I never said there was no trick at all.

It's a simple double exposure. One with full illumination showing the tube sitting on the carpet. Another in a totally dark room with the rest of the TV chassis guts moved into position to connect the tube neck, deflection yoke and high voltage. This was someone's old tube type tv I was fixing (I don't even remember whose) and when I had it apart this gag shot suggested itself to me.

There is one error in the photo: If you look closely at the right side you will see some orange dots which are the glow of the various tubes in the chassis during the 2nd exposure. I should have thrown a blanket over it.

Shame on anyone who didn't consider non-digital camera trickery.
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 11-27-2004, 09:29 PM:
 
Nice job, Steve! I wouldn't have guessed that in a hundred years! I was considering x-ray or ion beam bombardment.

(Damn high-tech stuff nowadays has warped me!) [uhoh]
 
Posted by Ben Holley (Member # 2247) on 11-28-2004, 01:13 AM:
 
 -
any SA goons here at these forums by chance?
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-28-2004, 07:25 AM:
 
Couldn't have been done with an ion beam as that woulda burned the phospor surface to a crispy brown. Remember... old sets have Ion Traps to prevent that. Later crt screens had a one wavelength coating of alumnium on the back of the pghosphor screen to prevent the ion burn.

I wouldn't have guessed double exposure either but I did notice those orange dots when I blew it up in PS.

Good trick shot!

Mark
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-28-2004, 10:31 PM:
 
The X Ray idea is pretty good though.
 
Posted by Jon Miller (Member # 163) on 11-28-2004, 11:55 PM:
 
Could a well-concealed hand held Tesla coil work?
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-30-2004, 07:34 PM:
 
It might but there still has to be connections for the electron gun and deflection yoke.

Some of the old 7" sets from way back in the early 50's had a high voltage section that was nothing more than a tesla coil that was driven by a simple tube oscillator, usually by a 12SN7 tube. It had nothing to do with the actual deflection of the beam as it would in a TV with a Flyback Transformer. Those sets all used electrostatic type CRT's with built in deflection plates. The Tesla coil is in the lower left corner of the photo between the two tubes.....

 -

Mark
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 11-30-2004, 10:00 PM:
 
Well when you think about it using the horizontal scan frequency to generate high voltage using a very small efficient transformer is pretty clever. I'll admit I would not have thought of it. I would been putting something akin to a neon sign transformer in each tv.

Then again I don't know if I would have thought of using the Variac running a take-up platter to also be the primary control for the payout. Ingenious...but perhaps better if they'd never thought of it and made it all independent?
 
Posted by Luciano Brigite (Member # 1104) on 11-30-2004, 10:13 PM:
 
One of the few ( and somewhat rare) results that comes out when I have a darn boring weekend..
 -

Sorry for the bad pic.. no digicam for me..taken with a lousy webcam..
On that board are assembled: stereo cell preamp (top/middle left)
dual DNR (bottom left/center) LCRS matrix (middle/top center) and the LCR ,5 band Eqs. (entire right side).
Circuits working in there: one side of preamp,matrix and 2 of the Eqs. the DRNs are missing 3 caps,one side of preamp is dead silent and one Eq is oscillating..ah well.. at least it's something comming into reality after some 3 years [Razz]
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 11-30-2004, 10:24 PM:
 
Luciano,

Awesome work! Keep it up [thumbsup] !

quote: Steve Kraus
Well when you think about it using the horizontal scan frequency to generate high voltage using a very small efficient transformer is pretty clever. I'll admit I would not have thought of it. I would been putting something akin to a neon sign transformer in each tv.

Just one of Philo Farnsworth's ideas that caused RCA lots of headaches and that they eventually HAD TO liscense from Farnsworth to begin producing and selling TV's.

BTW: That electrostatic deflection TV HV oscillator runs at 25khz so its inaudible... something a regular flyback isn't and can't do. Its only generating a max of about 6kv for that 7" CRT.

 -

Mark
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 12-01-2004, 01:24 AM:
 
I guess an early day videophile perfectionist if there were any would have turned down the horizontal and vertical deflection to allow the entire rectangular raster to be seen within that round tube face.
 
Posted by Paul Trimboli (Member # 1509) on 12-01-2004, 05:02 AM:
 
Luciano, amazing stuff! DNR- Dolby Noise Reduction? All in the small board! Great way for cinemas to get into cheap stereo sound! [thumbsup]
 
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-01-2004, 05:49 AM:
 
Is it DNR as in Dynamic Noise Reduction? (A National Semiconductor item) or Dolby noise reduction and which variety?

Steve
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-01-2004, 08:08 AM:
 
quote: Steve Kraus
I guess an early day videophile perfectionist if there were any would have turned down the horizontal and vertical deflection to allow the entire rectangular raster to be seen within that round tube face.

Oh, you mean like this........

 -

Mark
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-01-2004, 10:22 AM:
 
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Oh, you mean like this........

Looks pretty close to an HDTV 16:9 aspect ratio! [Big Grin]

(On my display, I measure your photo showing 36 x 20 millimeters on the CRT face, or 1.80:1).
 
Posted by Luciano Brigite (Member # 1104) on 12-01-2004, 11:51 AM:
 
Paul, that's the idea behind that small board. I'd say that it's more of a request from owners of a few theatres I service from time to time ( two of them are still running those mono tube racks!)it started with something for myself some 3 years ago now is making it's way to real world. there aer a few issues in the circuits to figure out (the back of that board is the tech's hell,dozens of jumpers and links everywhere) and see how it'll perform when hooked up with the projector's reader.
And as Steve said, the DNR is Dynamic Noise Reduction.I'm not sure if it will perform as expected since it's the first time I deal with those chips. With the exception of the DNR chips all the other components are off the shelf stuff.
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-01-2004, 07:40 PM:
 
quote:
Looks pretty close to an HDTV 16:9 aspect ratio!

Should I say that Emerson was very advanced in 1948 or.....

That photo was taken before replacing the sweep coupling capacitors that couple the output of the sweep circuits to the deflection plates in the CRT, but after rebuilding the high voltage and DC power supplies. But it still gives a good example of what Steve mentioned. Since the high voltage is not affected by the width of the horizontal sweep as it would be in a TV with a flyback type transformer its possible to get a much smaller picture..... but hey... there's a mystique to seeing and knowing that most of the TV viewing audience was watching a round picture that came from a pickup with a square target for close to the first ten years of broadcast tv. Indeed the public didn't get the picture so to say.

Mark
 
Posted by Jon Miller (Member # 163) on 12-01-2004, 08:07 PM:
 
Sorry for the late reply but that is indeed an interesting set, Mark, Tesla coil and all. I was going to ask if it buzzed like a faulty neon sign, but it "sounds" [Smile] as if the Tesla-coil concept was implemented quite well. Very good picture, too!

[thumbsup]
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 12-01-2004, 08:16 PM:
 
 -

Seems only a short time ago that the Governator was an actor, sound was analog-only, and you could ignore bi-lateral symmetry and have three boobs. (Sorry boys, none is real. Do I really have to tell you that?)

1.85 is kind of an odd choice for a big budget SF film like this.
 
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 12-01-2004, 08:34 PM:
 
Y'Know, the first thing I noticed was those two green lines down the right hand side of the film. Then I read the text of your post and figured out there is a partially naked woman in the picture! [Eek!]
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-01-2004, 09:55 PM:
 
Mono kicks ass. It figures someone like Steve Kraus would have a MONO copy of Total Recall.

And that ain't 1.85, either!
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 12-01-2004, 10:07 PM:
 
quote: Randy Stankey
...the first thing I noticed was those two green lines down the right hand side of the film.
Hahahahaha That's too funny, Randy! The 1st thing I noticed was what appeared to be a breast-enhancement operation gone VERY wrong! Hahahahha
 
Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 12-01-2004, 10:54 PM:
 
I saw that one in 3D!!
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 12-02-2004, 12:15 AM:
 
It seems very unlikely there would be mono tracked prints of Total Recall. Dual inventory SR vs. A-type probably. And of course 70mm magnetic prints. Just because Lt and Rt match in those few frames doesn't make it mono.

As for it not being a 1.85 show I can't help you because it was.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-02-2004, 01:36 AM:
 
I'm sure they struck a mono print just for you. Also the movie was SHOWN in 1.85, that doesn't mean that it IS 1.85. The picture on the film is approximately 4:3. I think you mean to say "Flat" which is a much more encompassing term. 1.85 denotes an exact aspect ratio which the film is obviously not.
 
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 12-02-2004, 01:56 AM:
 
You are right of course. It should be obvious that the only correct aspect ratio to show this movie is

 -

BTW the L channel appears to be a little lower towards the bottom, so this is not a mono moment.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-02-2004, 02:18 AM:
 
 -
 
Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 12-02-2004, 03:51 AM:
 
joe just likes to hear himself quibble, even if it makes no sense. steve merely said 1.85 was the choice for the film. i.e. the choice of ratio for showing it.

my quibble: bilateral symmetry is indeed preserved, assuming the middle tit itself has bilateral symmetry.

carl
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 12-02-2004, 07:23 AM:
 
Was SHOWN in vs. IS: When I hear you say a Scope picture is 1.195 or a 70mm film is (about) 2:1 then your point would have some validity.

I agree that FLAT is a more encompassing term. Too encompassing to anyone who knows that life extends beyond 1.85 & Scope. That's why I tend not to use it.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-02-2004, 12:08 PM:
 
Carl, if my "quibble" makes no sense to you, then you obviously do not belong in the industry. Steve, your "1.195" point on scope films is irrelevant since the image is actually anamorphic. I have Total Recall on videotape from years and years ago, and it is presented in that exact format shown in your film frame, no cropping for 1.85. Now you'll probably start talking about Super35 movies being shown in scope. But again, on film, those are anamorphic. So the film is 2.39:1.

I have seen quite a few films (like Aladdin, Nightmare Before Christmas) come out that were 1.66 or something retarded like that. Just because you showed them in 1.85 since you didn't have a 1.66 aperture and lens doesn't make the movie a 1.85 movie. Kna mean?
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-02-2004, 02:35 PM:
 
I saw "Total Recall" in 70mm. But I don't remember the triple titties filling the frame. Oh, and the 70mm version was not 2:1 or 2.39:1. Just a "flat" show (seemed like 1.85:1 to me), although the three titty lady wasn't flat chested. Kinda disappointing those are the only breasts you see in that movie. I figured Sharon Stone would be showing off some skin. Well, she did pose for a Playboy pictorial in 1990 about the time of that film's release.
 
Posted by Dean Kollet (Member # 1789) on 12-02-2004, 02:56 PM:
 
"...baby, you make me wish I had three hands"
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 12-02-2004, 04:02 PM:
 
I show films in the way the filmmaker, studio or other competent authority intends them to be shown...or as best as I can ascertain.

quote: Joe Redifer
I have seen quite a few films (like Aladdin, Nightmare Before Christmas) come out that were 1.66 or something retarded like that. Just because you showed them in 1.85 since you didn't have a 1.66 aperture and lens doesn't make the movie a 1.85 movie.
Of course I have 1.66 lenses & plates. Don't make me laugh. This is a professional screening room so of course we do. 1.37 too. If that is the optimum way to see any of the films you cite that is easily accomplished. Native Super 35 too.

You need to learn the lesson that what happens on video has little relation to what is on the film and it's inappropriate to make any judgements based on what you see on a tape or DVD. The fact that that shot or others may appear full frame on video doesn't mean the entire transfer was done full height. Maybe it was; maybe it wasn't. Maybe another shot has a mike boom in frame and the video tranferrist zoomed in and maybe a bit to the left. Maybe another was shot with a camera with a reduced height aperture. Maybe their artistic choice was to stay in tight like with 1.85 projection but going out to full heigh where the shot composition warrants seeing the full width. The point is you don't know unless you screen the print full frame in its entirety while comparing with what was transferred. It's foolish to make any statement about what a film is supposed to be based on video. I can tell you that after running dailies on dozens of 1.85 features only in one instance did anyone ask to see something full frame and that was just an editor who was somewhat confused. That is a pretty good indication that only what's in the 1.85 frame really matters although as I said, video can and will do whatever it wants.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-02-2004, 04:44 PM:
 
My video comment was basically to make the point that I don't think there is much in the way of obstructive information that would be cropped out in 1.85 like boom mics. But like you said, you never know... the movie could have been intended to be 1.81 or 1.47 or something retarded.

1.85 and anything narrower should be completely eliminated. Everything should be scope. That way the full frame is used, you don't have to worry about incompetant framing errors that will reveal boom mikes, etc. I don't even know why they shoot full-frame when making a flat movie when they could just shoot 3-perf and use less film and get comparable results. I mean flat's gonna suck anyway, and shooting full frame certainly won't help. Obviously the 3-perf would be transferred to 4-perf for theaters with giant frame lines. This will also help eliminate incompetant framing errors, because way too many people think that if they can't see a frameline, then it MUST be in frame.
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 12-02-2004, 04:52 PM:
 
If everything goes DI you might get your wish. But otherwise shooting 3-perf comes at the cost of making the whole show an optical.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-02-2004, 04:55 PM:
 
Huh? Acronyms should be against forum rules (Pytlak would have to stop posting, AFAIK). Explain "optical" in a non-elitist fashion, please.
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 12-02-2004, 05:35 PM:
 
Yawn... you 2 should get a room.

Back to the premise of this thread:

 -
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-02-2004, 05:52 PM:
 
 -
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 12-02-2004, 06:40 PM:
 
Um.........no.

But thanks for the offer. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 12-02-2004, 08:29 PM:
 
Joe... read his lips. The kid's saying "big fart", as in, you're a Big Fart! [Razz]
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 12-02-2004, 08:47 PM:
 
Actually I think he's saying: "Fuck You Joe! Go get a real girl and leave my tender young ass alone"
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 12-03-2004, 12:55 PM:
 
 -

From about 4 years ago. We're in downtown Chicago, just north of the river, looking west under the Merchandise Mart, which, it is claimed, is the largest commercial building in the world. That bridge, which allows forklifts etc. to cross, lifts out of the way to allow the passage of trains.

The railroad line is a spur which comes off the leads of the former C&NW passenger station, crosses the North Branch of the river on a drawbridge, then continues east under the Apparel Center, Merchandise Mart and under or behind various other buildings just north of the river to reach the Sun Times / Daily News Building. That's the same building currently being razed to make way for a new Trump tower.

Until printing operations were moved to a new plant in the last few years the rail line brought carloads of newsprint to the paper. It ended just about under the landmark Wrigley Building. It used to serve the Chicago Tribune just across the street until they built a new printing plant farther west. In the past the line continued all the way east out onto Navy Pier (now a tourist attraction). In 1975 the Freedom Train, touring the country with exhibits for the US Bicentennial, was displayed out on the pier. (The steam locomotive pulling the train couldn't make the sharp curves and didn't get all the way out to the pier.)
 
Posted by Sean Weitzel (Member # 244) on 12-03-2004, 05:43 PM:
 
Since we've been seeing some cool vintage electronic devices, I'd like to show everyone my new radio - 1940 Zenith Long Distance. 8s463 8 tube in a 5808 chassis. The cabinet is in original condition. The radio itself needed nothing more than a line cord, new capacitors and a dial cord.
 -
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 12-03-2004, 06:18 PM:
 
Whew Sean! That's a beauty! Perfect cabinet, black dial, and a "Magic Eye"... I bet it even has a "Wave Magnet"! You're very lucky to find that great radio in that condition.
 
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 12-03-2004, 07:14 PM:
 
Phil, I have a magic eye, too!
 
Posted by Dan Lyons (Member # 1454) on 12-04-2004, 03:16 AM:
 
Phil,
That view from your house is the best! [thumbsup]
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 12-08-2004, 05:44 PM:
 
Thanks Danny!:

 -


 -
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 12-08-2004, 05:51 PM:
 
I realize it's a major award but I would have thought they would have sent you the hirsute male version. Frah-jee-lay!

 -

http://www.leglamps.com
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 12-08-2004, 06:16 PM:
 
Hahahahha... too funny, Steve... but I'm NOT into "hair" [Wink]

Love the certificate touch... nice. [Smile]

Actually, I got my lamp for a lot less $ from HERE.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-08-2004, 07:38 PM:
 
 -
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 12-08-2004, 07:58 PM:
 
Phil, has this become an entire industry? [Eek!]

You mean yours didn't come with the certificate?
 
Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 12-08-2004, 09:20 PM:
 
 -
 
Posted by James Faber (Member # 2796) on 12-09-2004, 12:39 AM:
 
If you want my money, you first have to know the correct place for an apostrophe. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 12-09-2004, 08:52 AM:
 
Or at least make a sign that asks for money for punctuation lessons.

"When better women are made Faber men will make them" -- Animal House
 
Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 12-11-2004, 02:21 AM:
 
This escalator was just scary to look at...
Took forever to get to the top too.
 -

One of the Dart stations underground in Downtown Dallas.
 
Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 12-11-2004, 10:21 AM:
 
That's nothing... the stairs in St. Peters in the Vatican are even worse than that!
 
Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 12-11-2004, 11:40 AM:
 
The Vatican stairs follows the sloping edge of the dome so it is a trip. The gift shop on the roof was a riot. My partner and I where there for the Holidays and they where selling a CD with the Pope singing holiday songs [Cool]
 
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 12-11-2004, 11:42 AM:
 
Or the MTA Red Line subway station at Vermont and Wilshire in LA. They claim to have the longest escalator west of the Mississippi.

http://www.metro.net/about_us/filming_metro/hotlist/vermont_escalator.htm

This photo really doesn't do it justice--the thing is loooooong.

 -
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 12-11-2004, 08:05 PM:
 
Cool Paul, but while there are many cool stations for the Redline, the best station is at Hollywood/Vine:

 -
 
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 12-11-2004, 09:46 PM:
 
Very true. For those who haven't been there, the ceiling is festooned with thousands of 35mm shipping reels. [thumbsup] [beer]
 
Posted by Matthew Bailey (Member # 601) on 12-11-2004, 10:04 PM:
 
What are the projectors,soundheads & lapms? I assume the smaller pairs of magazines are for sound,right?
 
Posted by Dan Lyons (Member # 1454) on 12-11-2004, 10:36 PM:
 
Cool pic Phil! I looked for that once but never found it.. someone had told me it was at the stop below Graumans Chinese! Needless to say I was very disapointed when I went down below and didn't see any reels on the ceiling! [uhoh]
 
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 12-11-2004, 10:46 PM:
 
Hollywood & Vine (Pantages Theater)--it's the stop before Hollywood & Highland (Kodak and Chinese theaters), if you're coming from downtown.
 
Posted by Jon Miller (Member # 163) on 12-12-2004, 03:52 PM:
 
quote:
What are the projectors,soundheads & [lamps]?
They're Simplex E-7s with 1950s-vintage Magnarcs. I don't recall whether the SHs were SH-1000s or RCA 1040s. I have seen pictures of the projectors before, but have not had the chance to go there and check it out while in LA.
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 12-12-2004, 05:16 PM:
 
The Redline Hollywood/Vine station is actually located on the SW corner of Hollywood Blvd and Argyle Ave.

As Paul mentioned, it is across the street from the Pantages but a block east of Vine St.
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 12-12-2004, 05:36 PM:
 
Is that a 6000' (or 4000') magazine on top? Doesn't match the 2000' magazine beneath although it's hard to judge the sizes exactly. More interesting is that they seem to be equipped with an additional pair of 1000' magazines below and in front for running unmarried prints or dailies right on the projector. I've not seen this arrangement before; the old preview lower magazines I've seen were one large compartment with 3 spindles.

Like so (from the old Presentation Manual):

 -

An E7 even! Note the bypass channel to get picture film around the soundhead to the top front spindle of the lower magazine.
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 12-12-2004, 06:46 PM:
 
It's December and time for an update of the progress of my home screening room...

December 2002:
 -


December 2003:
 -


Artist Rendering (Our Grand-Poo-BAH) of December 2004:
 -


Actual pic of December 2004:
 -

As you can see, a lot of progress has been made... [beer]
 
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 12-12-2004, 07:09 PM:
 
I think your new lamphouse might be out of alignment. Oh, and Xeno-Sound kicks ass!
 
Posted by Jon Miller (Member # 163) on 12-12-2004, 07:38 PM:
 
Every impromptu home booth needs Portable Automation... [Smile]

 -
 
Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 12-12-2004, 11:12 PM:
 
Some pics from my shop, where I am currently building sound racks for our new 12-plex:

 -

 -

 -

 -

 -

And what workshop would be complete without tunes (all tube of course!): [Cool]

 -
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-12-2004, 11:26 PM:
 
Is that last picture the sound system for the new theater's big house?
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 12-13-2004, 10:36 AM:
 
No, that would be the CP50 on the shelf. Note how he's test running the new theatre's powerful HVAC system there on the floor.
 
Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 12-13-2004, 11:33 AM:
 
Steve K.

A lot of the old Fox West Coast preview theatres in Southern California were equipped with E7's and later XL's, that had the 1000 foot double-system set-up for studio preview workprints. I think the upper magazine could handle 3000 foot reels.
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 12-13-2004, 05:19 PM:
 
Hey, I've run 35mm double system in my bedroom at home. Mostly just so I could say I've done it. Reversal dupe of a workprint and 1:1 copy of cut production sound.

I presume the studio execs with home film screening rooms would have double system setups if they wanted to view dailies or workprints at home. Now they probably just do this via video.
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 12-13-2004, 05:31 PM:
 
So Aaron, series filament 35C5, 35C5, 35W4, & 12AX7/12AU7?
 
Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 12-13-2004, 06:30 PM:
 
The studio execs home screening rooms that I have run, when I was assigned to Los Angeles are all equipped to run double-system shows. Most are XL equipped and some have full Magna-Tech reproducers setup. Ron Meyer's (Chairman of Universal/MCA) room is setup using his living room as the theatre it over looks the Pacific ocean. Lee Rich's (former Chairman & CEO MGM/UA) is setup on the second floor of his home and has a small snackbar too. Robert Evans's (former VP at Paramount Pictures) room is setup in a former pool house (Kid Stays in the Picture), like the screening room at the former Mervyn LeRoy estate. The one at the former Jack Warner estate is a nice one too. The worst one to run was the Aaron Spelling room at the old estate.
 
Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 12-13-2004, 07:18 PM:
 
quote: Joe Redifer
Is that last picture the sound system for the new theater's big house?
quote: Steve Kraus
No, that would be the CP50 on the shelf. Note how he's test running the new theatre's powerful HVAC system there on the floor.
Wiseasses. Both of you. [Big Grin]

quote: Phil Hill
So Aaron, series filament 35C5, 35C5, 35W4, & 12AX7/12AU7?
Good call, Phil! (it's a 12AX7, btw)... [Smile] Here's a closer look:

 -

I'd put my ST70 up there but I don't think the shelf can handle the weight [Smile]

-Aaron
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-13-2004, 08:05 PM:
 
quote:
Some pics from my shop, where I am currently building sound racks for our new 12-plex:

Sort of looks like our shop too. A big mess and junk all over the place. We go from one job to another and clean up about every 6th job or so [thumbsup] !

Mark
 
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 12-13-2004, 10:50 PM:
 
I didn't get to play with tubes very much. Am I reading those numbers correctly? 35V filaments?
 
Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 12-13-2004, 11:05 PM:
 
quote: Paul Mayer
Am I reading those numbers correctly? 35V filaments?
Yep. all the heaters are connected in series across the 117V power line, eliminating the need for a large and costly power transformer:

35W4 (1/2-wave rectifier): 35V
2x35C5 (power outputs): 70V
12AX7 (preamp/driver): 12.6V

Total heater draw: 117.6V @ 150ma

The only drawback with such circuits is that one side of the power line is connected to the chassis, thus you have to be VERY careful how you plug the thing in... [Eek!]

-Aaron
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 12-13-2004, 11:10 PM:
 
quote: Aaron Sisemore
...such circuits is that one side of the power line is connected to the chassis...
Yeah, I found out about that when I was 9... WAY B4 the wide neutral blade plug! Ouch! Shocking! Yikes!
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 12-14-2004, 12:28 AM:
 
Ah well that explains so much! [Eek!]
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 12-14-2004, 11:33 AM:
 
The "All American 5" radio history:

http://home.netcom.com/~wa2ise/radios/aa5h.html

quote:
Possibly the longest lived consumer electronic product design was the five tube "AC/DC" AM radio. Virtually every household had at least a few over the years. These radios were low cost, and one expensive item designed out was the power transformer. Thus the series heater string, and using the powerline directly rectified for B+ power. No power transformer also made it possible for smaller and lighter sets to be made.


Typical tube complement in the 1950's:

12BE6 12BA6 12AV6 50C5 35W4

http://www.radiophile.com/adm3725r.htm

http://www.popular-communications.com/25WirelessDec04.html

quote:
Ed Engelken mentioned the potential risks associated with AC/DC receiver chassis in the October 2004 “Wireless Connection” column featuring his restoration of a National SW-54 SWL receiver (Photo A). Even more recently, a post in an Internet antique radio chat forum related the tragic electrocution of a young boy when he touched an outdoor water pump. Several years have past since we’ve discussed AC/DC receivers, so perhaps now’s a good time to review what you need to know to safely service and restore these sets. Line voltages can be deadly, so always treat any radio with respect, on or off the bench.

AC/DC Radios, What Are They?

AC/DC sets were designed to work on both AC and DC line voltages, and until fairly recently you could still find areas with DC power in larger cities. These sets used a tube lineup that was particularly suited for this service. For example, the typical 1950s AA5 tube lineup was a 12BE6 converter, 12BA6 IF amplifier, 12AV6 detector/first audio, 50C5 audio power amplifier, and 35W4 rectifier. These tubes were ideal sets using a series filament string that totaled near 110 volts, permitting them to directly operate from the AC or DC line voltage. Did you know that the “A” suffix on tubes meant they were specifically designed for series string operation? The filaments in A-suffix tubes were designed to withstand and share the initial startup surge current at turn-on. Other variations of the AA5 added a sixth tube for an RF or second IF stage.

AA5: The All-American Five

These simple AC/DC radio were nicknamed the “All American Five,” or AA5 for short, in honor of the seven-pin miniature 150-mA tube lineups consisting of the aforementioned 6BE6, 6BA6, 6AV6, 50C5, and 35W4 vacuum tube lineup. Earlier AA5 radios incorporated an octal-based tube lineup, generally using a 12SA7 converter, 12SK7 IF, 12SQ7 det/first audio, 50L6 audio, and a 35Z5 rectifier. Purists argue—and probably correctly so—that only those sets using the earlier octal tube lineup are true examples of AA5 radios.



 
Posted by Allison Parsons (Member # 2728) on 12-20-2004, 01:52 AM:
 
 -

I hope this worked. This is a picture of my one-eyed dog Sunny
 
Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 12-24-2004, 04:38 PM:
 
Good one John. I'd almost forgotten about those old 5 tube receivers. We used to call them "AC/DC Death traps".
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 12-25-2004, 12:13 PM:
 
 -

Merry Christmas and happy holidays to the Film-Tech family!
 
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 12-25-2004, 02:24 PM:
 
Gosh, Phil. You won't believe what you missed by not coming to Texas last weekend!

 -
 
Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 12-25-2004, 10:16 PM:
 
Bwaaaa haaaaa haaaaaa haaaaaaa..

Great one Adam...
 
Posted by Scott D. Neff (Member # 185) on 12-26-2004, 07:37 PM:
 
Man -- I missed it too.

First Bananna Boy and now Hot & Ready Thing with Dreadlocks that I Assume is a Guy.

Shux.
 
Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 12-27-2004, 10:06 AM:
 
I took this last year at the Water World Stunt Show at Universal Studios, Hollywood. For those who haven't seen the show, this scene involves them launching this plane on a big sling shot type device from behind that wall, and as it flies over the wall, the wall explodes. The plane is not on fire. That's the wall behind it. There is nothing holding the plane, it just soars through the air and then plops down in the water and comes to a stop in front of the audience.

Very VERY cool to see, and I had no idea this was coming when I took the picture.

 -
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 12-27-2004, 02:52 PM:
 
If they get a tail wind will it land on the audience?
 
Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 12-27-2004, 03:14 PM:
 
I suppose, but according to our tour guide, there are automatic safeguards that prevent the plane from being launched in anything less than ideal launch conditions. If a gust of wind blows through, the launch doesn't happen, and the show continues without the plane. Luckily, we got to see the plane.

Even more luckily, I managed to take a pretty spectacular picture of it... pretty much by accident. This was taken with a Sony Mavica (I think it was only 2 megapixel) digital camera. The original picture is 1600 x 1200.
 
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 01-06-2005, 08:56 PM:
 
This is the best, most truthful piece of advertising I have ever seen. It was posted above the gas pump when I got back home the other night and was gone today.

 -
 
Posted by Steven Privett (Member # 718) on 01-14-2005, 09:07 AM:
 
 -
 
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 01-14-2005, 09:49 AM:
 
You need the AUDIO from that trailer. [Big Grin]

[ 01-14-2005, 06:00 PM: Message edited by: Joe Redifer ]
 
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 01-14-2005, 04:21 PM:
 
The more I think about it, the more I'm sure that was played on a Mattel Optigan.
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 01-14-2005, 06:57 PM:
 
Honesty IS the best policy...

 -
 
Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 01-14-2005, 07:13 PM:
 
Steven, when I first saw that image you posted, I thought of a car flipped on its end rather than a projector. :-)
 
Posted by Kenneth Wuepper (Member # 1174) on 01-14-2005, 09:48 PM:
 
Steven,

That old General Cinema logo brings back memories of the Green Acres Cinema here in Saginaw, MI. It was a union house with one screen and changeover booth, located at the East end of a shopping plaza.

Later the theatre was cut into two smaller auditoriums with the same booth and the projectors had a common platter system. Shortly thereafter they used manager/operators.

Now it's a Hancock Fabric store.

KEN
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-14-2005, 10:15 PM:
 
quote: Kenneth Wuepper
Shortly thereafter they used manager/operators.

Now it's a Hancock Fabric store.

I've got to wonder if the Uptown in D.C. will be a fabric store in a year or two... fabric stores seem to be big buisness these days.

I have one of those GC trailers around here someplace... probably beat red by now.

Mark
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-15-2005, 01:10 PM:
 
 -
 
Posted by Scott D. Neff (Member # 185) on 01-15-2005, 01:28 PM:
 
If you're looking for enough booze to fill those 3-strip shakers... here's a pic from my NYE party.

 -
 
Posted by Floyd Justin Newton (Member # 1316) on 01-15-2005, 05:38 PM:
 
Scott--
If I had a stock like that....I'd be sleeping in the tub, too!!

fjn
Local 294 Ret.
 
Posted by George Roher (Member # 91) on 01-15-2005, 09:46 PM:
 
This is sloppy photoshoping, but it's amusing.

 -
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-16-2005, 10:40 AM:
 
Hey George, Thats hilarious! I'd like to see that done with an old Powers low intersity job.......

Mark
 
Posted by Jason Evenden (Member # 2951) on 01-16-2005, 04:06 PM:
 
here's one I took earlier...hope it works!

[ 01-20-2005, 09:18 PM: Message edited by: Jason Evenden ]
 
Posted by Jeffrey Korns (Member # 2791) on 01-17-2005, 02:15 PM:
 
Here is a rather disgusting view of a projection booth, good luck using that demolished toilet!
 -
I was spelunking around a long closed theatre. The theatre had been a changover from 1915 until 1978. Union records show that the theatre obtained permission to install a platter at that time. It's been closed since 1981. I did come across a peerless arclamp housing sitting on the floor of the balcony, but it surely must have been removed in 1978.
 
Posted by Scott D. Neff (Member # 185) on 01-17-2005, 07:06 PM:
 
Which theatre is that? And do you have more pics? [Smile]
 
Posted by Jeffrey Korns (Member # 2791) on 01-17-2005, 09:33 PM:
 
quote: Scott D. Neff
Which theatre is that? And do you have more pics?
It's the World theatre in Cedar Rapids Iowa. I've got more pics of the building, but don't want to tick off anybody by posting more theatre pics without permission.
Here's the lamp housing.
 -
I've compiled a history of the old downtown theatres in my hometown on my website www.jeffkorns.com
If anyone decides to go there please note that it was designed with explorer in mind and it looks really funky in firefox (haven't had time to redesign it.
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 01-17-2005, 10:25 PM:
 
Break Time, Boys...

 -
 
Posted by John Hegel (Member # 628) on 01-18-2005, 12:18 AM:
 
Looking at Jeffrey's site you have got to wonder what they were thinking when they started remodeling the Iowa theater.

I might have to drive down there so I can say wtf in person.
 
Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 01-18-2005, 01:11 AM:
 
quote: Jeffrey Korns
I've compiled a history of the old downtown theatres in my hometown on my website www.jeffkorns.com
Great stuff there. The picture of the curtain warmer at the World alone is worth the theatre geek visit! When do the auditorium pathology pictures of the Majestic/parking garage arrive?

Whoops, the <title> tag on your page still says "test1"!
 
Posted by John Hegel (Member # 628) on 01-18-2005, 01:34 AM:
 
Speaking of parking...

 -

It sounds like this theater may be a parking lot by mid summer. [Mad]
 
Posted by Dan Lyons (Member # 1454) on 01-18-2005, 03:19 AM:
 
Great idea to paint an auditorium white. [puke]
 
Posted by Jeffrey Korns (Member # 2791) on 01-18-2005, 09:11 PM:
 
quote: John Hegel
Looking at Jeffrey's site you have got to wonder what they were thinking when they started remodeling the Iowa theater.

I would agree. I remember the theatre when it was full size (a changeover house by the way- now the arc lamp housings are at the Paramount as "spares"). But I guess the alternative would be a parking lot or office building. The big thing that haunts the group that runs it is royalties. The calculation for the royalty payment on a play, or musical, is based on the # of seats in the house not the # of tickets sold.

quote: William Hooper
When do the auditorium pathology pictures of the Majestic/parking garage arrive?
When it's not so doggone cold! It's actually tough to get a good shot of the back wall of the stage for the Majestic, cause it's in a dark and narrow alley. The pictures I took on my last search for "where are they now" shots didn't turn out too good.
 
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 01-19-2005, 04:15 PM:
 
 -
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 01-19-2005, 04:31 PM:
 
Great pic, Adam. It reminds me of the sequence in "What's Up Doc?" with the guys crossing the street carrying that big plate glass window. [Smile]
 
Posted by Dan Lyons (Member # 1454) on 01-19-2005, 05:25 PM:
 
That car chase scene is the best part of the film! I love the encounter with the dragon.... [thumbsup]
I won't say anymore; let's not give away the best part to everyone.
 
Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 01-19-2005, 05:55 PM:
 
"You are me?" "No, I am Hugh."
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-19-2005, 05:59 PM:
 
Why are there two "BROADWAY" signs?
 
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 01-19-2005, 07:00 PM:
 
The small white street signs are customary in San Francisco. The larger arteries also have the big ugly green signs.

Has no one noticed that the street is so steep that the sidewalk is just a staircase?
 
Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 01-19-2005, 07:06 PM:
 
Heaven only knows how long that poor car's parkng breaks will last.
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 01-19-2005, 07:14 PM:
 
BTW: As a side note, I noticed that the street is soooo steep that the sidewalks are stairs!

JUST like in "Bullitt" and the "Tales of the City" series!

(Happy now, Adam?)
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-19-2005, 08:19 PM:
 
The green BROADWAY sign is much better because you don't need to squint to see it. This is why San Francisco sucks (no pun intended). That cars brakes have lasted quite awhile already... it seems to have a parking ticket!
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 01-19-2005, 08:41 PM:
 
BTW Joe, YOU suck! As some other poster mentioned, I too want your rotating/specialized color pics back! I'm tired of the LAME B&W "ape" one! HA!

I WANT my Joe back! And! I don't mean coffee! HA!
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-19-2005, 08:49 PM:
 
Only when and if I feel like it![av=g]
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 01-19-2005, 09:03 PM:
 
HA! YEAH! That's my Joe! Love it!
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-19-2005, 09:48 PM:
 
You see, Philliam, the problem with this set of avatars is that I have to choose one for each and every post I make, and then put in the appropriate code for it to appear. That got tiring really quick, especially with 26 different avatars. So I wanted one that would be the default one, because the 27th default pic was pretty bad and I got sick of coding each of my posts for the appropriate avatar. So these probably rarely will make a return unless I need to flip somebody off.[av=x]
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 01-19-2005, 10:05 PM:
 
Well Joe, you obviously mistook me for someone who gives a shit about what you have to say!

Hey! I'm NOT a priest and I could care less about your posting problems!

However, I would like to say that I still think you should get off your lazy ass and at least post a general color pic when you post. I mean, I DO enjoy you giving me the finger, but my point is that ANYTHING is better than the "APE" pic!
 
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 01-19-2005, 10:16 PM:
 
WAAAAAAHHHHHHHH! Um ...

Grant Avenue, Chinatown, San Francisco.
 -
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 01-19-2005, 10:18 PM:
 
The hell with you Adam... STOP interrupting! I want to beat on Joe!
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-19-2005, 10:41 PM:
 
[av=u]Sorry Phil, nothing's changing until you change your "old geezer" pic to something better!
 
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 01-20-2005, 12:55 AM:
 
Grant Avenue
San Francisco
California U.S.A.
Looks down
From Chinatown
Over a foggy bay

Wish Universal would put that one out on anamorphic DVD... [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-20-2005, 01:31 AM:
 
Why does San Francisco have a Chinatown, but no Japantown or Iraqtown? Or perhaps even Africatown, Mexicotown or Germanytown? Fucking racists!
 
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 01-20-2005, 02:26 AM:
 
But there *is* a Japantown in San Francisco, no more than a mile from City Hall. The AMC Kabuki 8 is located in that district. There's also a Russian Hill district not far from Chinatown.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-20-2005, 04:02 AM:
 
Not good enough. ALL countries must have their own town within San Fancisco and they must have equal size and funding. Don't try to shove your racist agenda on me!!!!
 
Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 01-20-2005, 06:58 AM:
 
quote:
Or perhaps even Africatown,
Because Africatown is in Mobile.
 
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 01-20-2005, 11:57 AM:
 
Little Arabia is in Dearborn, Michigan; Mexicotown is in Houston; Koreatown is in Los Angeles; Germantown is in Ohio. Jamaica is in New York City and Jamaicatown is in Toronto. Disneyland is in Anaheim.
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 01-20-2005, 03:46 PM:
 
quote: Joe. Redifer, not the coffee
Sorry Phil, nothing's changing until you change your "old geezer" pic to something better!

Oh PUHLEEZE Joe! You know I have NO control over what you mods choose for my ID pic. You guys must have 30+ pics of me... many unflattering and many you and Adam have "modified" for your and his own perverted enjoyment. So don't give me that line! HA!
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-20-2005, 06:37 PM:
 
Phil, I looked through all of the pics we have of you and they are all GEEZER pics, even the Vietnam era ones (did you join back when you were 50 or somethin'?).

I win.
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-20-2005, 10:09 PM:
 
quote: Adam Martin
....Koreatown is in Los Angeles; Germantown is in Ohio. Jamaica is in New York City and Jamaicatown is in Toronto. Disneyland is in Anaheim.

And then there's Phils house above Hollywood......
 
Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 01-21-2005, 12:57 AM:
 
Algiers is right across the river from the French Quarter in New Orleans. You can take the ferry at the foot of Canal Street, or just stand there & look at it.

People who live in Algiers are called Algerians, just like people who live in Chalmette are called Chalmatians.

OK, a lot of times they're called Aljereens.
 
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 01-21-2005, 08:25 AM:
 
So, what do they call people who live on the island of Lesbos?
 
Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 01-24-2005, 02:28 AM:
 
quote: Randy Stankey
So, what do they call people who live on the island of Lesbos?
Like the site says, people & things related to Lesbos are called Lesbian.

quote: wikipedia
The word "lesbian" is derived from the island's name. This originates in the poems of Sappho of Lesbos, where love between women was described.
quote: wikipedia
It [Lesbos] is also the name of its main island, which is also called Mytilene
Mytilene, also known as Mitylene in Thucydides, various Bible translations, etc., is about 10 miles east of Montgomery, Alabama.

 -
 
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 01-24-2005, 09:46 AM:
 
Well, the answer is actually on the Wikipedia page:

quote:

In modern Greek, the island's name is Lesvos and its inhabitants are thus named Lesvonians or Lesviots (rather than "Lesbians").

[Big Grin]
 
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 01-28-2005, 05:15 PM:
 
Scott Neff took this photo and must have moved the camera before the exposure was complete. Interesting effect, though.

 -
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-28-2005, 06:59 PM:
 
We had a special showing of POLAR EXPRESS for grade school kids on Dec. 16, resulting in this picture in the local paper. Sorry for the fairly bad quality...I'm trying to get the original file from them, but scanned this right out of the paper.

 -
 
Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 01-31-2005, 05:58 AM:
 
quote: Adam Martin
Scott Neff took this photo and must have moved the camera before the exposure was complete.
That's very strange. It doesn't have the smeared look of having moved the camera, or camera shake look on the walls, seats, etc. It's mainly around the screen & ceiling, the ceiling being flat & lighted by reflected light from the screen. My guess is that 1) a movie was running & it wasn't just white light on the screen 2) the humidity if the theatre contributed to exposures at odd positions of light near the screen not just from the direction of the projection beam, but also reflections in other directions 3) possibly something in the camera at areas which are greatly overexposed (if it's a film camera, it doesn't look like internal reflections or fogging, but if it's a digital camera, who knows what's going on in there).

There's always a lot of humidity in theatres; it's not usually immediately apparent, but even slightly longer exposures reveal it by turning spotlights into laser beams & putting odd blobs in space from reflections off odd shiny spots:

 -

The jagged tracer effect of some of the light artifacts extending from the screen could be just action in the movie reflected from the screen or shown in humidity in the beam.

That screen picture also looks like the aperture plate is too wide, & that a lot of picture is winding up on the right-side masking.

If it's something in the camera freaking out over hugely overexposed areas, it might be better to take a picture before the movie.

What kinda movie is that, anyway?

 -
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-31-2005, 09:19 AM:
 
Scott didn't move the camera. It's just a ghost. In fact, it's indisputable proof of ghosts, just like all other ghost pictures.
 
Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 01-31-2005, 02:48 PM:
 
The picture is blurry from the camera movement.

I imagine that the camera started taking the exposure while the screen was relatively dark. Then a sudden bright scene came up on the screen and lit the auditorium in a flash-like effect.

You sometimes get a similar effect when you use a flash that's not properly synced to the shutter.

Oh, and that picture of the band on the stage...
They probably used a "hazer". It's like a fog machine but, instead of making billows and billows of fog/smoke, it just creates that "smoke-filled room" effect.
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-31-2005, 05:29 PM:
 
quote: Adam Martin
Scott Neff took this photo and must have moved the camera before the exposure was complete.
It's called a time lapse exposure guys. If there is any camera movement during the exposure, it shows up like that.
 
Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 01-31-2005, 07:39 PM:
 
 -

Me with car legend Brock Yates, organizer of the Cannonball Run's in the 70s, and writer of the movie.
I got my Turkish 1sheet autographed by him as well.

 -

Here's Phil Hill's car up for auction [Wink]
(Phil, Kutler thought this would be funny... heh)

 -

Sweet Trans Am up for auction.
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 01-31-2005, 07:52 PM:
 
Well Mike, as usual, Will is smokin' that I-30 stuff! Here is my car...oh and it's NOT for sale...

 -
 
Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 01-31-2005, 07:56 PM:
 
Mike, that pink T-bird is SEXAY. [Cool] I would prefer white or pearl though.
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 01-31-2005, 07:57 PM:
 
OK Jen, I'll buy it just so *WE* can take a ride! I'll even paint it "Pearl White" just for you! [Smile]
 
Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 01-31-2005, 09:21 PM:
 
So I guess the Firebirds are out of style eh? Rats. [Wink]
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 01-31-2005, 09:46 PM:
 
Gosh Mike, I never thought they were EVER "in style".... Z-28 IROC's were! Ummm... that was my "divorce car"...

But my "Divorce Trophy Car" was the Vette! [Razz] [beer]
 
Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 02-01-2005, 01:40 AM:
 
quote: Randy Stankey
The picture is blurry from the camera movement.
If the camera moves, everything in the picture is affected in the same way, in the same amount.

There's a little camera shake, but notice the seats & right wall have nowhere near the same artifacts as the screen. The seats are a little soft, but scans of sharp pictures often look that soft.

I still think it's something happening in the camera, or the dancing light/dark portions in humidity of the projector beam directly to the screen and reflections from the screen. The length of the exposure allows more of them to register on film.

quote: Randy Stankey
Oh, and that picture of the band on the stage...
They probably used a "hazer".

There's ALWAYS humidity in an auditorium that has had people in & out of it, & sometimes even without frequent traffic. You can tell in exposures even in empty theaters by the more nimbus-like areas around light fixtures even when they've been blown out in overexposure.

No hazer or fog machine here, they were running video:

 -

It's a fairly short exposure, you can tell because the people aren't very soft (they move, dammit!), but you can see the cones of light from the spots & projector in the humidity.

I was at a film shoot in a theatre recently: when they got all the actors, crew, extras & whatever people in & set up, the operator said "it's soft!" It was the humidity of course, & it was chased out by running the air conditioner (in winter!) with the washer/humidifier turned off.

I know there's less humidity in arid & colder geographic locations (dried-out leather & lumber are nightmares in organs in the northwest & northeast when they're located in areas with no climate control), but humidity still stands in auditoriums (& church sanctuaries, etc.) that are built for climate control. Church organs built in cases located in climate-controlled sanctuaries are usually fine, but TO's & church organs located in non-climate-controlled pipe chambers in those areas deteriorate very badly.
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-02-2005, 08:04 PM:
 
Some guy always has to step in and change the subject........ [Mad] . And we just about had Jen in Phils backseat too.....

Now after a brief paise inside a humid theatrre we can get back to the subject of this thread.......

Phil.... Now this is a REAL Caddy! V-12 and all......


 -

They also made a  -

Mark
 
Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 02-02-2005, 08:13 PM:
 
Wha...? No no... I'm not in anyones back seat! [Wink]

Though a classic Vette is VERY NICE. [Cool]
 
Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 02-02-2005, 09:02 PM:
 
Is that Jen impersonating a hood ornament on that Caddy [Wink]
 
Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 02-04-2005, 12:38 AM:
 
I would rather be the hood ornament of a Mustang GT(preferably 1965-1969) or the Mach 1.
 
Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 02-04-2005, 03:47 AM:
 
quote: Dan Lyons
Great idea to paint an auditorium white. [puke]
Hey Ed Jurich, are you out there?
Look at what the Hooterville Ladies Garden Club now running the Mobile Saenger did in their 4.5 million dollar "restoration":

 -

Yes, they've painted it white except for some tiny gold details & moldings, & bathroom-tile green in some small areas.

Now, all the things which were integrated via decoration are just things that stick out. The air conditioning vents on the ceiling look like ulcers. The blind grillework over the boxes which was part of the decoration scheme now looks like: grilles for air conditioning or something (which of course it's not, it's just decorative).

The minimized redecorating scheme now makes the chandelier look like a bathroom ceiling lighting globe.

Most hysterical are the lighting trees hung from the ceiling. At my first & last meeting in 2000 with that group when they took over the theatre & called in some technical folks, they were ecstatically talking about redecorating & remodeling, removing all that "clutter" of lights on the balcony, & cutting a lighting trench in the ceiling like they'd seen at some flat-ceiling theatre. I'm afraid my poker face finally fell off, & I told them that the balcony rail & box booms are not just historically highly functional positions, but folks in historic theaters with ornately decorated interiors & ceilings don't cut lighting trenches because they're ugly & reveal an embarassing lack of stewardship & appreciation for the historical aspects of the theater. I mentioned the Fox(es), New Orleans Saenger, etc., & they looked like they'd been busted & were terrified.

So instead, it turns out they've hung these huge lighting trees from the ceiling like upside-down painters' scaffolding, & cut holes in the ceiling for access from the attic. They protrude MUCH more into the auditorim than the camera lens indicates - look at their size & position in comparison with the chandelier!

Funniest still is for this newspaper photo-op "soft opening", they've hung 35 instruments on the thing for a one-man piano show! You see, they are for something, not just because we wanted to *do* something!

The big news is the cozy gathering area they've created & they love:

 -

Where's this? Why it's at the back of the house! The Mobile Saenger didn't have to have a wall put in at the back of the house when sound came in, because unlike most silent movie palaces which just had a straight, open line from the screen to the back of the house to the front doors to the street, the Mobile Saenger had a back wall & entrances from 2 sides via a vomitory. They've turned their vomitory into a hallway! All the traffic on the floor, 1,000+ seats, has to go through that little area, which is the *widest* part of the narrow hall - you can see how wide the rest of it is by the narrow entry spaces at the left & right of the little room.

Now the audience go up the aisles to those new doors at the back of the auditorium & have a wall in front of them running the width of the auditorium. It will of course be a clot of traffic & waiting during shows with decent attendance, but scariest (especially relevant because we've been talking about the Glen Cinema disaster), in a fire or panic it will be a dam of people. There are side exits, but architects, managers, & fire marshalls will tell you that the funny thing about people is that they will ALWAYS try to get out the same way they came in, & not even see other exits. Rapp & Rapp (& Saenger's architect Emile Weil, who did consulting work for Rapp & Rapp as well) got the science of moving 2,000 people in & out all day quickly & safely down to machine precision. But they're no match for people who just like to remodel & redecorate, because the point is entirely different.

They don't care that "it looks old" to them is just their personal tawdry taste, & they don't care how anything works. It's all driven by wilfull ignorance & ego.

Easily the 3 most beautiful Saenger theatres were the New Orleans Saenger, Shreveport Strand & Mobile Saenger. The New Orleans Saenger has a continual restoration process & their marketing director conducts research (he knows what the theater is selling to ticket buyers):
 -

The Shreveport Strand was restored & named the Official Theatre of the State of Louisiana.

Even Beaumont, TX last year completed a meticulous restoration last year on Saenger's 1700 seat Jefferson Theatre.

The Mobile Saenger's being plowed under by barbarians. The redecorating orgy's stimulus is "The Country Mouse Sees The Galleria", but it's result is "Brand New Home Depot Before The Shelves Are Stocked".
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-04-2005, 08:03 AM:
 
quote:
Look at what the Hooterville Ladies Garden Club now running the Mobile Saenger did in their 4.5 million dollar "restoration":

William,

What an eyesore!

The Hooterville ladies should be placed in the center of the auditorium and the nearest wrecking company should be brought in to put that auditoiuim and their ego out of its misery in a big hurry [thumbsup] . I think the saying Stupid is as stupid does fits this one and the Hooterville ladies are sure stupid

Mark
 
Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 02-04-2005, 03:41 PM:
 
These were taken at my brother's wedding. They were taken using a digital camera, and these two pictures were taken no more than a few seconds apart. Can any camera experts here explain what the glowing white ball on the bride's veil could be?

Before you answer with "a spot on the lense" or something like that, we have lots of pictures from several different cameras, some digital, some 35mm, and while not every picture has these glowing balls, several cameras seem to have captured them at one point or another, sometimes, just like this... two shots taken back to back of the same thing, one picture has them, and one doesn't.

 -
 
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 02-04-2005, 04:23 PM:
 
It's likely to be the flash reflecting off of large dust particles in the air.
 
Posted by Richard Hamilton (Member # 321) on 02-04-2005, 05:09 PM:
 
Its another Ghost picture. If you look at the second picture, all of the bridesmaids look possessed!

Mike - Very sweet Trans Am! In high school I had a 68 Firebird convertable. It only had the straight 6 in it, but was still quick, and a blast to drive. Gotta love those old muscle cars!

Rick
 
Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 02-04-2005, 05:30 PM:
 
The three apparitions in that picture in obviously in formation. This is undisputedly a close encounter, I'm not sure which kind it is.
 
Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 02-04-2005, 08:03 PM:
 
quote: Adam Martin
It's likely to be the flash reflecting off of large dust particles in the air.
That may explain some of them, because I have a ton of digital photos with those kinds of artifacts in them. But they're generally one solid color, like some of the ones in this photo.

The one on the veil though, I'm not so sure that that one is dust.
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-05-2005, 05:18 AM:
 
 -

Hey Gordon get off the damned internet and pay attention...the reel is about to run out!
 
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 02-05-2005, 12:08 PM:
 
Sorry brad I VCR has auto rewind on it [Smile] so where are the rest of the pictures
 
Posted by Bill Carter (Member # 156) on 02-06-2005, 02:45 PM:
 
Brenkerts, anyone?

 -

 -
 
Posted by Christian Volpi (Member # 2370) on 02-06-2005, 03:43 PM:
 
Check out the angle on those. WOW!
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-06-2005, 04:32 PM:
 
No kidding! What an awful, keystoning presentation they must have! I'd make sure to never see a movie there. Ug!
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 02-06-2005, 05:38 PM:
 
(In Capt Kirk's voice)

"Dr. Gordon McLeod: Wannabe freelance gynecologist and self-indulgent porno website surfer."

Hey Gordie, I sure the heck hope you have a pocket protector for all those pens! Hate to see a "stain" on that lovely smock.
 
Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 02-06-2005, 08:26 PM:
 
Phil, I was thinking the same thing about those pens. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 02-06-2005, 08:33 PM:
 
Phil I always believe in protection
In fact there are two sharpies, mini screwdriver, tweeker stick and a proximity voltage probe in my pocket
 
Posted by Jeffrey Korns (Member # 2791) on 02-06-2005, 09:41 PM:
 
Well how bout this for an oldie? This baby is in a side storage room in a theatre here.
 -
Oh and as for extreme angle projection, the projectors in this booth are at about the same angle as in the previous post. They're still operated off the original DC motors and keystoning really isn't a problem, even with the booth a good 5-6 stories up.
 
Posted by Brent Neal Jones (Member # 1048) on 02-07-2005, 01:19 AM:
 
Introducing the NEW Film-Guard Enema !!
 -

For those of you that just hate scratching and peeling those stolen frames and previews. Heres a new way to protect them and clean them at the same time!

 -

Much better than those "other" non-drying film-cleaners....
 -

That can't be taken orally or rectally......
Just tip and squease......and remember, you can never have too much Film-Guard!

*pic of Brent with a FilmGuard bottle jammed up his rectum deleted*

You already know hundreds of people just like you use Film-guard, why not YOU?......

 -

Thanks Film-Guard! [Big Grin]

[Big Grin]

[ 02-07-2005, 11:16 PM: Message edited by: Brad Miller ]
 
Posted by Dan Lyons (Member # 1454) on 02-07-2005, 01:38 AM:
 
Shocking [Eek!]
 
Posted by Josh Jones (Member # 447) on 02-07-2005, 02:11 AM:
 
Disturbing.....
 
Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 02-07-2005, 03:01 AM:
 
Brent, I think you had too much to drink. [uhoh]
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-07-2005, 04:35 AM:
 
In that case I hope he drank it before buggering himself with the bottle. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Christian Volpi (Member # 2370) on 02-07-2005, 08:21 AM:
 
Who the hell comes up with this kind of stuff??
 
Posted by Brent Neal Jones (Member # 1048) on 02-07-2005, 12:35 PM:
 
Hey! At least I was tactful! [Wink] It could have been worse....I came up with the idea yesterday while answering e-mail for the drive-in. The bosses kids were feeding their hamsters and I saw the bottle and though hummm.....how could I use that. I wish I had alcohol to blame, but I'm more creative without it!
 
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 02-07-2005, 05:00 PM:
 
That is probably one of the more tsteless things I have seen on here maybe the mods should ban him
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 02-07-2005, 06:07 PM:
 
quote: Brent Neal Jones
I wish I had alcohol to blame, but I'm more creative without it!
Perhaps you should start drinking... you seem to be delusional without it.

I agree with Danny, Josh, and Gordon. Ya know Brent, ya really gotta understand the difference between "suggestive humor" and just plain being vulgar and crass.
 
Posted by Jon Miller (Member # 163) on 02-07-2005, 06:51 PM:
 
That has to be one of the strangest "off-label" uses for FilmGuard and an even stranger picture. [Eek!] An ordinary FilmGuard bottle will never look the same...

Maybe the mods should just swoop in and quietly delete the picture! [evil]
 
Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 02-07-2005, 08:36 PM:
 
That was hilarious.

=TMP=
 
Posted by Adam Wilbert (Member # 1184) on 02-07-2005, 09:35 PM:
 
I agree. Those ORC platters are entirely in bad taste. Ban him for even taking pictures of them. They're not even Super Platters!
 
Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 02-07-2005, 09:37 PM:
 
Adam they are Speco not ORC
 
Posted by Adam Wilbert (Member # 1184) on 02-07-2005, 09:54 PM:
 
oops... the big white butt in the picture was in the way. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-07-2005, 10:08 PM:
 
Quick, somebody put a picture on this page so we can erase the previous disgusting images from our subconciousness.
 
Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 02-07-2005, 10:15 PM:
 
 -
 
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 02-07-2005, 10:21 PM:
 
Mike beat me to it. Here, have an airport ramp screw up... [Big Grin]

 -
 
Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 02-07-2005, 11:11 PM:
 
I like my pic better. [Wink]
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-07-2005, 11:17 PM:
 
Ummm, yeah. I think that's probably going a bit too far there Brent. I did leave a description for those reading this in the future wondering what the above discussion was regarding.
 
Posted by Brent Neal Jones (Member # 1048) on 02-07-2005, 11:36 PM:
 
Disclaimer: No asses were harmed in the making of this post. The "Photo-shop" King Joe Redifer should be the first to know what trick photography is. And furthermore. I'm VERY SORRY for those of you that can never look at Film-Guard the same again...

And Phil...I figured you most of all would appreciate my "Blunt" form of humor.

Steve Kraus: This gives new meaning to "Butt-God".

Brad: Maybe you should change the color of the bottle to O.R.C. orange. LOL! [Big Grin]

Take Care now, y'all, with love really....even though I'm soooo disappointed at this response. [Frown]
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 02-08-2005, 06:15 PM:
 
quote: Brent Neal Jones
And Phil...I figured you most of all would appreciate my "Blunt" form of humor.
Brent, sorry to have come down so hard on you... I have enjoyed many of your posts.

However, while I certainly enjoy and have put forth more than my share of "blunt humor" on Film-Tech, I just find it uncouth to post (what I consider) inappropriate "pictures." I mean what's next, hot naked pics of people? Granted there are many other websites where that sort of thing would be OK, I just feel that FT is above that crap.

Give us all a break and use words to convey your humor and if worded right, it will be even funnier in the minds of those that read it.

Hang in there and just be cognizant that there are proper places for ALL things... knowing when and where is the key.

Just my 2 cents.
 
Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 02-08-2005, 06:20 PM:
 
Ponder this transition!

 -
 
Posted by Brent Neal Jones (Member # 1048) on 02-09-2005, 12:58 AM:
 
Great one Mike.

Now for the NEWEST Film-Guard line of products.
For the Ladies.....

Inroducing the NEW Film-Guard Douche!
 -
Also available in new "shower fresh" scent!

*Disclaimer: due to negative feelings towards last post, I failed to demonstrate. [Wink]
 
Posted by Dan Lyons (Member # 1454) on 02-09-2005, 01:02 AM:
 
not again... [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-09-2005, 02:01 AM:
 
quote: Brent Neal Jones
Disclaimer: due to negative feelings towards last post, I failed to demonstrate.
Unless my memory of biology lessons back in the fourth form is seriously defective, you would have had a big logistical problem in doing so (unless a willing volunteer could have been found, which I somehow doubt)!

What next - a Filmguard intravenous drip? [uhoh]
 
Posted by Allison Parsons (Member # 2728) on 02-09-2005, 09:00 AM:
 
quote:
Inroducing the NEW Film-Guard Douche!

oh dear god no... Side fact: Douche was created by a man in the first place. icky.
 
Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 02-09-2005, 09:33 AM:
 
 -
 
Posted by Brent Neal Jones (Member # 1048) on 02-09-2005, 12:25 PM:
 
An I.V., that's a GREAT idea, mmmm....that's going to be difficult. I'll get to work on it right away! [Smile]
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-09-2005, 12:25 PM:
 
Jeremy:

"Ride 'em Cowboy!" [Big Grin]

Are all those toys yours? [Wink]
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 02-09-2005, 04:01 PM:
 
Nah John, those are his kid's toys.

Jeremy sent me a pic of his "toys" which he keeps in his bedroom dresser...top drawer.

Also notice the S&M/B&D instuctional video playing on the monitor.

"Ruff Rider Jeremy" new ID pic:

 -
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-09-2005, 09:49 PM:
 
New latest medicine for what(ever) ails Phil [thumbsup]

 -
 
Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 02-09-2005, 10:22 PM:
 
Gimme some of that as well! [Smile]
 
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 02-09-2005, 10:30 PM:
 
quote:
Ponder this transition!
I did, and I don't get it. What's so funny about the pictures?
 
Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 02-09-2005, 10:46 PM:
 
Guess you have to be a Burt Reynolds fan to enjoy that. Sorry.
 
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 02-10-2005, 03:53 AM:
 
Explain!!!
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-10-2005, 07:49 AM:
 
quote: Mike Henan
Ponder this transition!

Mike,
Some day you will also get old and wrinkly! Should we ponder that as well?

Mark
 
Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 02-10-2005, 08:35 AM:
 
quote: Phil Hill
Jeremy sent me a pic of his "toys" which he keeps in his bedroom dresser...top drawer.

You did send me the catalog after all.. [Wink]

Thanks for the new name buddy!
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 02-10-2005, 08:09 PM:
 
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
New latest medicine for what(ever) ails Phil.
Gosh Mark, Let's see...

Depressed? Nah.
Over Worked? Nah... Don't work anymore.
Job Suck? Nah... no job.
Unappreciated? Only by some and they don't matter.. so nah.
Family Problems? Nah, we are a close family.
Money Worries? HA! You must be kiddin'!

Well, I guess I just take the Fukitol caps just for the hell of it... [Razz] [beer]
 
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 02-14-2005, 05:39 PM:
 
 -

Photo taken in Lansing, Illinois the other day.
 
Posted by Christian Volpi (Member # 2370) on 02-14-2005, 05:51 PM:
 
There's a few water towers in Illinois that all look like that. The bowtie is in honor of the late Paul Simon, former Senator of Illinois.
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 02-14-2005, 06:09 PM:
 
Gosh Adam, that pic for some reason reminds me of that lame "Catch The Sperm" game.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-14-2005, 11:13 PM:
 
Photo of me and a couple of friends taken Feb. 13, 2005 at the Jersey Lilly in Ingomar, Montana (www.thejerseylilly.com)

 -
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 02-15-2005, 06:06 PM:
 
Mike, funny you mention that. I was talking to The Duke on his deathbed, just before he died, and he mentioned you. He told me that he would never forget you. He said talking to you was like talking to a "Standee".

Unfortunately he passed on 20 minutes later so I guess he only remembered you a very short time... [Razz]
 
Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 02-17-2005, 09:15 AM:
 
Me as Front Row Joe when I worked for Cinemark in the late 90's.

 -
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-19-2005, 05:32 PM:
 
 -

Gus Visser and His Singing Duck. The 'unknown' director cited in this linked page is Theodore Case, as much as it could be said to have been 'directed' at all!

QUAAAAAAACK ! [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Richard Fowler (Member # 893) on 02-19-2005, 07:31 PM:
 
Theodore Willard Case and Earl Sponable developed in the Case laboratory, optical sound recording equipment and designs which was purchased by Fox film corporation. This system became the Movietone process which was the first major sound on film system that was promoted and distributed by a major studio. The "test" films where made mostly in 1923 - 25. He may have been a "clueless" director but his legacy is still in use [Cool]
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-20-2005, 09:42 AM:
 
I wasn't trying to suggest that Case was clueless - rather that there's a limit to how far you can 'direct' a duck! Actually, if you look closely at Gus' left hand just before each quack, it appears that the duck is being directed in a way of which the less said, the better. Think of the infamous Filmguard enema and you'll get the idea! If any performer tried an act like that now, animal rights activists would go berserk.
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 02-20-2005, 09:06 PM:
 
 -
 
Posted by Floyd Justin Newton (Member # 1316) on 02-21-2005, 09:17 AM:
 
Phil--

Cute True NEON?
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 02-21-2005, 06:29 PM:
 
Yep, real neon. One in my collection...I love neon!
 
Posted by Dan Lyons (Member # 1454) on 02-22-2005, 12:19 AM:
 
huh? Is there something called "fake neon"???
 
Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 02-22-2005, 03:39 AM:
 
Yes, Dan, there is a 'fake neon':

it is done by backlighting a black background with neon-colored translucent areas done in 'neon tubing' fashion. From a distance it is hard to tell the difference. Up close, it sticks out like a sore thumb as being fake.

-Aaron
 
Posted by Christian Volpi (Member # 2370) on 02-22-2005, 02:17 PM:
 
http://www.jpleisure.co.uk/cat54_1.htm

This could be considered "fake neon." It's made with l.e.d's but it looks exactly like neon. We're getting some installed at my theater right now. You can't even tell the difference even from up close.
 
Posted by Adam Wilbert (Member # 1184) on 02-22-2005, 03:39 PM:
 
it probably doesn't buzz or shock you like real neon does though... [Frown]

There is also Electroluminescent (or EL) glow wire that looks like mini neon. I have some in my computer case, 'cause I'm a dork.
 -
 
Posted by Jon Miller (Member # 163) on 02-22-2005, 07:17 PM:
 
Here's an example of fake neon like what Aaron described earlier. This was a beer sign I unloaded on eBay a few years ago...

From a distance and to a very untrained eye, it looks, well, sort of real:

 -

But, lo and behold, it's nothing more than some injection-molded plastic with a fluorescent tube within:

 -

Cheap, yes, but totally soul-less. [Smile]
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-22-2005, 07:34 PM:
 
LED strip lighting can be a good substitute for neon, but only if you need segments that run in straight lines. Also be prepared to pay at least double the price per foot for what you would spend on neon.

I've seen just about every LED-based attempt at a neon substitute and none of it fully does the job. This is especially true for lighting up channel letter signs. It doesn't matter whether the channel letters have trim-capped acrylic faces or have the lighting exposed (in what we call "reverse channel").

Certain LED border lighting systems are pretty kick ass. Truly, there is only one company worth a damn in that field: Color Kinetics. Their stuff is really f**king cool, but pretty expensive. Figure $100 per foot for their 24-bit programmable LED neon style system. You can animate graduated colors, patterns and all sorts of other spiffy stuff with it.
www.colorkinetics.com

Fiber optic lighting doesn't work as a neon substitute. And Color Kinetics products are killing it on the high end. Fiber optic cabling is not anywhere near as bright as neon and costs a lot more. Plus installations are just stupidly cumbersome. You have to buy expensive illumination bases (that start at $400 and up way up in price) and those bases are only good for lighting maybe 10 or 20 feet of fiber at best.

The main inspirations for people trying to substitute neon for signs and border lighting are tube damage and tube failure due to poor quality neon fabrication. Both problems are easily overcome. Going with a shop that does everything UL Listed will remedy the shit quality signage thing. If you want a real sign, have a real sign company make it. When neon is properly made and processed it should last at least a few years, if not longer. You get what you pay for if you just go with whatever company is the cheapest. Protective aluminum channels and extrusion systems with clear Lexan covers are available. We use those things all the time. They're pretty good at protecting neon against hail and stuff like that.
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 02-23-2005, 06:59 PM:
 
You guys can all have your fake neon and LED crap... I'll take real neon with spellers and incandescent bulb chasers and scintillators any day!

The movie called "The Neon Ceiling" made in the 70's got me started collecting the stuff.

 -
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-24-2005, 10:36 PM:
 
 -

This ain't no Neon stuff but its probably break'n alot of Neon as it hits Mach 1!
 
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 02-27-2005, 10:39 PM:
 
The end of another long day at the office:

 -
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-27-2005, 10:46 PM:
 
Yet another drunk pilot. You guys need counseling. As you can see, the altimeter is off and you are about to burst into flames upon impact.
 
Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 02-27-2005, 10:46 PM:
 
Paul,

Awesome shot!

Flight lessons are something I've always wanted to try.. no better way to get over the inner fear of flying than to learn to fly the plane!
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-27-2005, 10:53 PM:
 
That cockpit picture scares the shit out of me. The plane is fixing to hit the runway and there's no one flying the plane!!!
[Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!]
 
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 02-27-2005, 11:38 PM:
 
Damn it Joe! I thought I hid the hip flask better than that.

Bobby, that's what autoland is for. Everyone was in the back, eating stew...

Yeah, right. [Big Grin]

Wish I had taken this one. It is from Airliners.net

[ 02-28-2005, 12:40 AM: Message edited by: Paul Mayer ]
 
Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 02-28-2005, 05:03 AM:
 
What do you want on your tombstone?

 -

Altec A7 headstone from this page.
 
Posted by Mike Williams (Member # 1140) on 02-28-2005, 05:29 AM:
 
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That cockpit picture scares the shit out of me. The plane is fixing to hit the runway and there's no one flying the plane!!!

Or worse... instead of landing the plane, the pilot is busy taking pictures!
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 02-28-2005, 05:35 AM:
 
Paul, that pic reminds me when I was a 16mm cameraman for ABC-TV News and my boss and I went to Texas(I think Dallas) to American Airlines for a human interest story. Since I was a smart-ass young punk at that time with his Private Pilots License, I got a chance to fly their DC-10 simulator.

I did pretty good on take off and flying, but had a "little" problem with the landing... I landed 40 feet BELOW the runway and killed everyone aboard... Ummm including myself! HA!

(True story!)
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-28-2005, 07:07 AM:
 
But at least the cargo hold door didn't blow out, no engines fell off and you managed to avoid flying it into a mountain... [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 02-28-2005, 11:16 AM:
 
The DC-10 was never one of my favorites--Leo's list includes the highlights of its "greatest hits." [evil] Glad to hear you survived your trip in the simulator for one Phil. Even the DC-10 simulator has been known to hurt people. [Big Grin]

That night flightdeck shot was made with a Nikon D70 by Dario Crustafon, an observer riding in the jump seat directly behind the center pedestal. You can just make out the partial silhouette of Captain Javier on the left and the shirtsleeve of F/O Álvaro on the right. The shot was the end of a night ILS approach to runway 6 at Paris Orly on an Air Europa Boeing 737-800. Nice shot--tricky exposure and no motion blurring. [thumbsup]

Jump seat rides are a lot of fun. I really miss being able to use my airline IDs to do that.

Bill, that A7 tombstone is awesome! I'm not going to be buried, but if I was, a AA-II marker would be just the thing. [Smile]
 
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 02-28-2005, 11:40 AM:
 
Hmmm, something weird going on here. Partial double-post. Moderators please delete.

[ 02-28-2005, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: Paul Mayer ]
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-28-2005, 01:15 PM:
 
...not to mention the special order DC-10 with optional plough attachment: [Big Grin]

 -

quote: Paul Mayer was the last to post
Glad to hear you survived your trip in the simulator for one Phil.
Well I've now survived three trips in a real one (and all within the last 2 years, so they must be getting pretty ancient by now)! Six lives left, I guess.
 
Posted by Jarryd Beard (Member # 2543) on 02-28-2005, 01:42 PM:
 
I went to DC on 2/19. I enjoy how this picture turned out:

 -
Washington Memorial

And this has to be the hottest hotsauce I've ever tasted. (Never tried the Atomic Wings at Quaker Steak and Lube.) This sauce was from California Tortilla. It's a very good burrito place we ate at in Chinatown. For those who know the DC area, the restaurant was right across from the Regal Gallery Place Stadium 14. In fact, the restaurant has a deal with Regal where you can take your burritos to the movies and receive a discount! I didn't read into the details of the deal.
 -
Rectum Ripper
 -
The information on the back of the bottle stated that this WAS NOT blood dripping off the chile. Wonder what it could be?
 
Posted by Christian Volpi (Member # 2370) on 02-28-2005, 01:51 PM:
 
quote: Jarryd Beard
very good burrito place we ate at in Chinatown
What kind of burrito places do they have in China Town?
 
Posted by Jarryd Beard (Member # 2543) on 02-28-2005, 02:06 PM:
 
I know, kinda ironic. I believe this California Tortilla place is part of a chain based in Maryland. The basic bottle of hot sauce for the restaurant said it was packaged for California Tortilla, Maryland, USA.
 
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 02-28-2005, 03:54 PM:
 
"Rectum Ripper"... I love it! [Big Grin]

Jarryd, you've gotta try some "Dave's Ultimate Insanity." It may define a new top end on your hotness scale. 245,000 on the Scoville Heat Scale. [evil]
 
Posted by Jarryd Beard (Member # 2543) on 02-28-2005, 04:14 PM:
 
Obviously, those have a synthetic "hot" added to them. The atomic wings I mentioned above are found at Quaker Steak and Lube. I've never tried them, but you have to sign a waiver. See the chart below to see where the hottest natural flavor (Suicide) is, then look at the huge distance to Atomic (150,000 on the scale). Still, nowhere near the 245,000.

The Lube has great wings. My favorite are the Arizona Ranch. Hot, yet no need to dip! Below is a Scoville heat chart of their wing sauce offerings.

 -
 
Posted by Jason Burroughs (Member # 68) on 02-28-2005, 05:20 PM:
 
I too have survived a flight in a Death Chamber 10 (DC-10) rattle trap...

Nothing like seeing the ground crew frantically motioning the pilot to stop during departure, only to disappear under the fuselage with a roll of speed tape (aviation equivilant to duct tape). Re-appear in a few mintues and sends us on our merry way.

Sun Country was such a fantabulous airline. And those GE engines sounded like buzz saws.
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 02-28-2005, 05:59 PM:
 
I'm not sure what everyone has against the DC-10. American Airlines and United Air Lines used to fly them between Boston and Chicago, and I took a number of those flights as a kid. Occasionally, I'd get to chat with the flight engineer in the cockpit, which was always a thrill. At least one American aircraft had a small camera in the cockpit and they showed the pilot's view of the approach and landing on the movie screen, which was cool. The L-1011s that TWA was flying at the time looked better, though.

I once flew a DC-9 simulator (about ten years ago) at the Northwest Airlines training facility in Minneapolis. With a "real" pilot beside me, I was able to complete a takeoff and landing, but had trouble with "straight and level" without the autopilot.
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-01-2005, 01:54 AM:
 
I guess it's an issue of public perception: doors blowing out, engines falling off the wing, a big airliner flying smack into the side of a mountain and another one ploughing a field a 300mph all make for dramatic images. Furthermore two of the disasters were both caught on camera as they happened, further adding to the negative publicity. By the same token the fact that the Hindenburg made over 20 transatlantic flights and Concordes operated for 20 years without any incident before the ones which ended their careers hasn't stopped both aircraft from becoming synonymous with, err, 'aviation safety issues'. Again, both the Hindenburg and Concorde disasters were photographed as they happened.

I suppose the fact that DC-10s are still in revenue earning service after three decades show that the design was fundamentally good and that the problems have been ironed out. They just don't inspire confidence, that's all. When I flew from Amsterdam to Minneapolis last November we arrived at the gate to find an empty stand with a sleek new Delta 777 on one side and a shiny KLM Airbus on the other. Eventually the DC-10 was pulled to our stand by a tractor. The paint was badly faded, there was soot all over the engine housings, and the thing just basically looked unloved. Compared to the two aircraft either side it looked like something out of Austin Powers, and as Jason points out they sound and feel like something out of Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines: so much so that someone in the queue in front of me asked her partner: 'Are we supposed to be getting on that thing? Is it capable of flying?'. I'm sure it was excellently maintained and all the DC-10 flights I've taken passed without any problem, but in an industry where safety is such a big issue the appearance of it just didn't inspire confidence.
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 03-01-2005, 02:32 AM:
 
I agree with Scott about the DC-10. I flew (flied? flued? fluid?) many thousands of miles on the DC-10 and had no problems and liked the plane a lot.

However, that shitty L-1011 scared the crap outta me! What a POS plane!
 
Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 03-01-2005, 05:43 AM:
 
jarryd, what's up with that "scoville heat chart"? i can't figure the scale out. it's not linear or logarithmic. the most that can be said is that the numbers increase as you go up it. what do the numbers indicate?

carl
 
Posted by Jarryd Beard (Member # 2543) on 03-01-2005, 08:35 AM:
 
Check out this link. Scoville Explained

quote:
Heat in peppers is measured in Scoville
Heat Units, named for Wilbur Scoville
who worked for the Parke Davis
Pharmaceutical Company. In 1912 he
was working on a muscle cream that used
capsaicin, the substance in peppers that
give them their heat. Scoville conducted
a series of tests with whole ground chilies
mixed in a solution of water & sugar. He
had a panel of 5 testers sip the solution
in increased dilutions until it reached the
point that it no longer burned the mouth.
Lot's of Prylosec & Rolaids in the room
(at least there would have been for me). A
number was then assigned to each pepper
based on how much it needed to be diluted
before you could not feel the heat.
One part of chili-heat per one million
drops of water was then rated at 1.5
Scoville Heat Units or SHU for short.
When asked, Scoville called his test
"The Scoville Organaleptic Test."
Measured in multiples of 100 units,
the pungency of chili peppers finds
itself at zero Scoville Units in your
basic green & colored bell peppers ,
while the hottest of hot peppers the
Red Savina variety Habanero chili
ranks in at a whopping 350,000 SHU.

Basically, it's the number of units of water required to eliminate all heat from a hot food.
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-01-2005, 01:45 PM:
 
Every time discussion of DC-10 crashes come up, I sadly remember John Lakotas, a Kodak motion-picture engineer and close friend, on his way back to Hollywood from an engineering meeting in Rochester on that fateful day at ORD on May 25, 1979. I last saw him about four hours before he died, as he left to catch his flight to Chicago. [Frown]

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19790525-2

quote:

Date: 25 MAY 1979
Time: 15:04 CDT
Type: McDonnell Douglas DC-10-10
Operator: American Airlines
Registration: N110AA
Msn / C/n: 46510/22
Year built: 1972
Total airframe hrs: 19871 hours
Engines: 3 General Electric CF6-6K
Crew: 13 fatalities / 13 on board
Passengers: 258 fatalities / 258 on board
Total: 271 fatalities / 271 on board
Ground casualties: 2 fatalities

Flight 191 left the gate at Chicago-O'Hare at 14:59 and taxied to runway 32R. At 15:02 the flight was cleared for takeoff. The takeoff roll was normal until just before rotation at which time sections of the No. 1 engine pylon structure came off the aircraft. During rotation the entire no. 1 engine and pylon separated from the aircraft, went over the top of the wing, and fell to the runway. Flight 191 lifted off about 6,000 feet down the runway, climbed out in a wings level attitude, and reached an altitude of about 300 feet agl with its wings still level. Shortly thereafter, the aircraft began to turn and roll to the left, the nose pitched down, and the aircraft began to descend. As it descended, it continued to roll left until the wings were past the vertical position. The DC-10 crashed in an open field and trailer park about 4,680 feet northwest of the departure end of runway 32R. The aircraft was demolished during the impact, explosion, and ground fire. Two persons on the ground were killed.


 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 03-01-2005, 03:09 PM:
 
Sorry. Actually, just after pressing 'send' on my last posting I had a nagging thought that someone who is in some way connected to one of the accidents I was joking about might end up reading it. I was just remembering a 'gallows humour' conversation with an off-duty flight attendant I ended up sitting next to on the flight home from Minneapolis about DC-10s crashing and blowing up.

By the same token as the DC-10s' (unfairly acquired) reputation for accidents, I sometimes feel a bit frustrated at that practically everything that's ever been written about the R101 airship takes the 'easy to be wise after the event' line that it was a flawed and incompetent design from the word go: one of my ancestors was a crew member who died in the crash. Several design innovations (e.g. self-regulating pressure valves) that began with that airship ended up being developed further and used in a number of different industries afterwards, so it's really not fair to describe the whole project as a complete dead loss.

My cousin, who is in his final year of an aeronautical engineering degree, assures me that the DC-10 is statistically a very safe aircraft indeed (if it wasn't, he pointed out, they wouldn't still be in use for scheduled transatlantic flights). The only real design flaw was the cargo door which caused the 1974 Paris crash: technically the issue was quite minor and was quickly fixed once it had been identified. According to my cousin the Chicago crash was caused by the engine having been removed from its housing for maintenance using an unauthorised procedure - nothing to do with the design of the plane itself. I'd have no problem traveling on one again.
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-01-2005, 10:17 PM:
 
Leo: No offense taken. It would be even sadder if victims were not remembered. We shouldn't avoid talking about tragedies, sometimes it helps avoid future ones.
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-01-2005, 11:12 PM:
 
quote: John Pytlak
Every time discussion of DC-10 crashes come up, I sadly remember John Lakotas, a Kodak motion-picture engineer and close friend, on his way back to Hollywood from an engineering meeting in Rochester on that fateful day at ORD on May 25, 1979.
I know what you mean John. I was working at Canon USA in Elmhurst when the crash happened. We were about 10 miles diectly south of the point of impact with giant floor to ceiling windows that faced north and it looked like the entire northern suburbs were going up. We all knew it was a plane crash being in such close proximity to the airport, we were right near the south west corner of ORD. Later that day we also learned of the fate of two Canon employees who were heading back to L.A.. Didn't know the Canon employees but I will never forget that day or the huge column of smoke not very far away!

quote: Leo Enticknap
According to my cousin the Chicago crash was caused by the engine having been removed from its housing for maintenance using an unauthorised procedure

Leo,
That is absolutely correct! It was a shortcut that AA maintainance had come up with on their own and was not FAA, or MD approved. Amazingly the plane could have been easily controled, brought back and safely landed. The pilot performed the opposite maneuver that he should have.... but he didn't know.... the maneuver that would have saved them wasn't even devised or thought of so it in his training or flight Sim. It was later devised, added to normal procedural training and every pilot training has to be able to perform that maneuver in the Flight Sim in order to qualify.

From Air Disasters. com

"The accident investigation revealed that, when the engine separated, it disabled the Captain's control panel, which contained both of the slat disagreement systems. The severed hydraulic lines allowed the slats on the left wing to gradually retract, and the stall speed on the left wing rose considerably. When the aircraft slowed through 164 knots, the left wing aerodynamically stalled because of its clean configuration, while the right wing continued to produce lift with its slats still in takeoff position. With one wing stalling and one wing producing full lift, the airplane eventually rolled past a 90° bank, and fell to the ground."

Hence..... Had they maintained speed the left wing would not have stalled and he could have gone around..... Altitude also had alot to do with it... not much time to react at 400 foot altitude.....

Mark
 
Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 03-02-2005, 08:52 AM:
 
I was working on my dads farm along I-88 in Aurora when the plane went down. Being that far away, I even felt that it was plane by ORD. About a hour later, went to the house to check on the news and sure 'nuff.
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 03-02-2005, 09:11 AM:
 
Did a quick search for more about John Lakotas. His memory lives on:

http://www.theacorn.com/News/2000/0720/Community/43.html

quote:
REMEMBERING A LIFE, NOT MOURNING A DEATH – A resident of First Neighborhood in the city of Westlake Village, Lisa Wildermuth, plants a tree in memory of her father, John C. Lakotas, who was killed in a 1979 plane crash. The Jacaranda tree planted recently is part of a Memorial Tree Plan that allows residents to plant commemorative trees in greenbelts that lace their way around and through First Neighborhood. With Wildermuth are her husband, Michael, who’s standing on the left holding baby John (who was named for his grandfather), daughters Nicole, 5, and Rebecca, 8, along with Iraj Broomand, mayor of the city of Westlake Village.


 -
 
Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 03-02-2005, 03:19 PM:
 
NOT an animated GIF...

 -
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-02-2005, 10:40 PM:
 
Enough talk about DC10's that nobody cares about! Are you trying to bore this thread to death, people? If you are going to discuss something, you should at least discuss something interesting so that everyone else can remain awake. Comply or be BANNED!

And now the adventures of Boomer the Retarded Cat!
 -

 -

Freakin' 'tard!
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 03-02-2005, 11:22 PM:
 
Looks like "Boomer" has had a little too much drink!
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-03-2005, 01:04 PM:
 
I tol'ja to stop keeping spare Film-Guard in the cat's water dish. Now look what happened.
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 03-04-2005, 12:18 AM:
 
I wanted to post this for hhot James... but then I thought about my friends Danny and Josh, and then a couple of others here... SO little time!

 -
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-04-2005, 04:48 AM:
 
Gee Phil, so little time for what with James, Danny and Josh? [Confused] [Confused] [Confused]

Here's a scary thought...
 -
 
Posted by Kyle McEachern (Member # 2250) on 03-04-2005, 06:55 AM:
 
 -

This is a shot taken of a solar flare, put under some nifty filters. The cool part about it is that the gap created by the 'O' shape of the flame is big enough that the Earth could pass through it.
 
Posted by Kyle McEachern (Member # 2250) on 03-04-2005, 07:01 AM:
 
To be continued...
 




Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2