More like a multi car pile up. Ya'll must be driving in a fog in granola land (soggy nuts, fruits and flakes). Now I've started a new subject line. This post is doomed.Anonymous wrote:Ya, but it's like a bad accident. Everyone has to stop and gawk.
moral dilema!!! film is beautiful, but...
Moderator: Andreas Wideroe
-
Guest
-
Scot McPhie
Well like Lucas I just got back from holidays to this too - THIS IS FANTASTIC - THIS IS THE BEST THREAD EVER - DON'T STOP IT - EVER!
Okay my thoughts - seriously
- all that religious arguing - forget it
Chris (even though you're probably not reading this now) - do whatever you want - but don't deny the realities - you're killing animals in other ways - we all do - just by being alive - I know that's not your point BUT IT IS THE POINT - you're actually doing more for the environment and the world by working in with the natural organic systems rather than the synthetic ones - it's not nice - it's just part of life - all living things live and die and effect one another - sometimes fastally - and you're doing far more good by harmonising and working in with that - than by denying it - which to be honest is all I think you are doing. That doesn't mean domineering nature the way we do now - but just accepting and exhibiting to a normal degree the domineering effect that all living things have as they live their life in this finite world. As I said it's not nice but it is part of what we are on this earth. Even plants out compete and stunt or kill off one another - it's just how it is - and I think accepting that doesn't stunt one's spiritual growth but helps open it up.
If you're reading this I hope you're not taking any of this personally because it's not meant that way - but when your talking about such a personal belief, I understand how it can feel personal.
Anyway good luck with whaatever you do - and good on you for thinking so deeply about things - the world needs more people like that - but sometimes it becomes it's own end - and I've spent half my life like that! - Not good!
Best wishes
Scot McPhie
http://www.mango-a-gogo.com
Okay my thoughts - seriously
- all that religious arguing - forget it
Chris (even though you're probably not reading this now) - do whatever you want - but don't deny the realities - you're killing animals in other ways - we all do - just by being alive - I know that's not your point BUT IT IS THE POINT - you're actually doing more for the environment and the world by working in with the natural organic systems rather than the synthetic ones - it's not nice - it's just part of life - all living things live and die and effect one another - sometimes fastally - and you're doing far more good by harmonising and working in with that - than by denying it - which to be honest is all I think you are doing. That doesn't mean domineering nature the way we do now - but just accepting and exhibiting to a normal degree the domineering effect that all living things have as they live their life in this finite world. As I said it's not nice but it is part of what we are on this earth. Even plants out compete and stunt or kill off one another - it's just how it is - and I think accepting that doesn't stunt one's spiritual growth but helps open it up.
If you're reading this I hope you're not taking any of this personally because it's not meant that way - but when your talking about such a personal belief, I understand how it can feel personal.
Anyway good luck with whaatever you do - and good on you for thinking so deeply about things - the world needs more people like that - but sometimes it becomes it's own end - and I've spent half my life like that! - Not good!
Best wishes
Scot McPhie
http://www.mango-a-gogo.com
-
Lucas Lightfeat
- Posts: 716
- Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2002 1:09 am
- Location: London, England
- Contact:
Dressing up as Hitler at a fancy dress party is incredibly funny! Funny AND entertaining. How often have you ever seen someone dressed up as Hitler? Never, I'll bet. We have to go to the movies to see that kind of thing normaly. Which fool said that wasn't funny? It wasn't the same fool that said he was giving up film-making because it is immoral to have fun, was it? No that was another fool altogether.
Lux
Lux
As a final thought I would like to say that the American Indians were the most respectfull of their enviornment and they ate red meat. I think that the important thing about life and living is not to kill more than you have to, eat more than you have to or destroy more than you have to. As Krishnamurti said: "tread lightly".
-
Guest
Chris, you said 'I simply believe that it's wrong for me to benefit from the suffering of animals'.... (in part by utilizing gelatine-based film products)..
I'm not on the attack because as a vegetarian I also get a lot of flak from people asking me to justify or defend my views...
but wouldn't this philosophy mean that you would have a moral issue with going to see movies... therefore promoting the industry that is related to the suffering of animals? even to watch a movie on tv, (let alone going to the cinema and creating demand), would be benefitting you while an animal has suffered for your viewing pleasure...???????
I'm not on the attack because as a vegetarian I also get a lot of flak from people asking me to justify or defend my views...
but wouldn't this philosophy mean that you would have a moral issue with going to see movies... therefore promoting the industry that is related to the suffering of animals? even to watch a movie on tv, (let alone going to the cinema and creating demand), would be benefitting you while an animal has suffered for your viewing pleasure...???????
-
orangefunk
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2003 2:56 pm
- Contact:
Only you can decide for yourself.
Well this post has gotten out of controal man.
But this is what happens when one makes a personal matter public.
In the end, you have to decide for yourself brother.
Talk it over with yourself and no one else. Then make your decision.
But this is what happens when one makes a personal matter public.
In the end, you have to decide for yourself brother.
Talk it over with yourself and no one else. Then make your decision.
-
Lucas Lightfeat
- Posts: 716
- Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2002 1:09 am
- Location: London, England
- Contact:
This is a great thread because this is the only forum I'm a member of, except for the Hostboard version of pretty much the same interest, which seems to have mostly the same membership, and this has been a nice diversion for me - we should make this the official OT and mad rant thread, so Super8 film-makers can rant in safety, without having to create a whole new thread about it. That Scandinavian princess business could have gone in here, etc.
Lux
Lux
-
wallnuts
optical sound for Super8
Well, judging by how things went so far, I will not even go into the subject on the type of glue that Kodak used to attach the sound stripe to the film. However, out of curiosity, how many people would prefere optical sound tracks on super8 like other formats. I see where it will be difficult to develope the fidelity that would be expected on super8 format, but being the laser/electronics techinician I am, I have some ideas.
wallnuts
wallnuts
-
BolexPlusX
- Posts: 423
- Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2002 3:00 pm
- Location: Long Island, New York
- Contact:
Anything Else than what we've been talking about......
Oh my!, Could this thread actually develop a redeeming value? (is that what it will take to finally make it go away?).
I've thought about this concept of a laser based optical sound system for super-8 myself and it is intriguing. The upside of it is it would do away with the whole concept of sound film. If you built the laser scan into the camera let's say two frames above the aperture and provided a two frame electronic delay for the sound to be layed down, you could have an exact alignment of sound and image, which would make editing on film a breeze.
The downside is the sound you get is the sound you keep, since you can't re-record as on a magnetic medium. Because of this if you wanted to add in effects and music later on you'd have to go second system or do it as part of a video transfer. If you did go second system the laser signal on the film could also have a sync signal encoded into it.
Of course there is the problem of where the equipment would come from, there's nothing being made at the moment and the mods of existing stuff would be expensive. (Any thoughts?)
I've thought about this concept of a laser based optical sound system for super-8 myself and it is intriguing. The upside of it is it would do away with the whole concept of sound film. If you built the laser scan into the camera let's say two frames above the aperture and provided a two frame electronic delay for the sound to be layed down, you could have an exact alignment of sound and image, which would make editing on film a breeze.
The downside is the sound you get is the sound you keep, since you can't re-record as on a magnetic medium. Because of this if you wanted to add in effects and music later on you'd have to go second system or do it as part of a video transfer. If you did go second system the laser signal on the film could also have a sync signal encoded into it.
Of course there is the problem of where the equipment would come from, there's nothing being made at the moment and the mods of existing stuff would be expensive. (Any thoughts?)
-
wallnuts
Hi BolexPlusX,
I think I will start another forum about this subject and maybe more poeple will respond. Not only that, I don't think this subject is worth haveing on this awfull thread!!!
But anyway, I know some people in the plastic business and I enjoy using super8 so I am just wondering what the industry response would be. I think that this method of recording would be the best for making a "master" film with the full audio tracks on it and then projected. I did find a super8 projector with optical audio readablity on it, but that was many many years ago and I couldn't even tell you who made it and where I saw it. Anyway, I'll start a new forum on this subject and for any other response, please see it. Thanks.
I think I will start another forum about this subject and maybe more poeple will respond. Not only that, I don't think this subject is worth haveing on this awfull thread!!!
But anyway, I know some people in the plastic business and I enjoy using super8 so I am just wondering what the industry response would be. I think that this method of recording would be the best for making a "master" film with the full audio tracks on it and then projected. I did find a super8 projector with optical audio readablity on it, but that was many many years ago and I couldn't even tell you who made it and where I saw it. Anyway, I'll start a new forum on this subject and for any other response, please see it. Thanks.
-
Scotness
- Senior member
- Posts: 2630
- Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2003 8:58 pm
- Location: Sunny Queensland, Australia!
- Contact:
Re: optical sound for Super8
I have a book called "How to do Sound on Film" by Focal Press (Fully revised in the 4th edition in 1969) and it says on 16mm the highest frequency that could be recorded optically is 7000Hz. That was a while ago of course I wonder what it would be now - either on 16mm or Super 8.wallnuts wrote:out of curiosity, how many people would prefere optical sound tracks on super8 like other formats. I see where it will be difficult to develope the fidelity that would be expected on super8 format, but being the laser/electronics techinician I am, I have some ideas.
wallnuts
Scot
Read my science fiction novel The Forest of Life at https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01D38AV4K
-
MovieStuff
- Posts: 6135
- Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 1:07 am
- Real name: Roger Evans
- Location: Kerrville, Texas
- Contact:
Re: optical sound for Super8
Probably no different. Frequency response is affected mostly by the speed of the analog medium going past the sound head, whether optical or magnetic. Since film is still shot at 24fps, then I would imagine it is going to have pretty much the same results. Tighter grain and better electronics might make it less noisey but the frequency responce will be about the same, I believe, if using the same type of analog recorder/reproducing mechanism.Scotness wrote: I have a book called "How to do Sound on Film" by Focal Press (Fully revised in the 4th edition in 1969) and it says on 16mm the highest frequency that could be recorded optically is 7000Hz. That was a while ago of course I wonder what it would be now - either on 16mm or Super 8.
Scot
Roger
http://www.moviestuff.tv