super 16 short diary

Santo · Post by **Santo** » Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:27 am

I'm not going to bother reading any of the replies to my last post. I'm just replying to your first post to say "you're welcome" for doubling the number of views on your "super 16 diary" from 700 to about 1400.

$50 to my paypal account will be enough.

Thanx.

Post by **MovieStuff** » Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:57 am

Nigel wrote:I can see why someone would feel good about shooting a short and wanting to share their glee with the world.

And well they should, as should Mattias. But people should feel comfortable about saying what they think about a clip and not have to worry they'll be nailed for having the "wrong" opinion. I know that Mattias doesn't see this as a valid point but, really, how can he denounce one person's opinion about a web clip based on the premise that it is too small to make any real technical assessment and then turn around and make the very same sort of technical assessment, himself? All it does is take the fun out of sharing these sort of clips with the rest of us.

Roger

Post by **S8 Booster** » Fri Sep 17, 2004 7:43 am

Strange with all this fuzz abt "nothing".

I think Mattias "on-line teutorial" (how to make 16mm short on a lo budg when the mainstream is digital) is valuable and should be so to very many surfing this forum. A few fresh dos and donts may reveal.

16mm is cheating of course ;-) - but okey- IÃ‚Â´ll let that go for now.

Anyway, Mattias comment on the small clip may have been taken too far in a harsish tone but is not incorrect.

The clip is great for its size and it plays remarkably well in full screen. in full screen however it does off course not look like either 16mm or a good S8 transferred for full screen jobz. And some (most I have seen) old 16mm like early 60s is allways not (or seldom) upping modern S8 transferred.

Mattias may of course benefit from not allways making his *rightz* right - allthough he may be right and since many of the folks surfing this forum may have thinner armour than I have - a nicer attitude may well be valuable - at least for the sake of the forum.

And Santo - when did you ever post anything on this board other than harsh words, occational slippery licks and Spanish Castles?

You have a lot to prove.

R

Post by **Nigel** » Fri Sep 17, 2004 9:49 am

Roger--

Take my comment at face value. I said it and I will say it again....It is understandable to want to share with the world what you are proud of. I think it is great for Mattias to get up and show what he has. However, that said he also needs to be willing to take the heat for what he shows.

He made a great and wonderful effort. Yet, dirt and soft focus will turn off an executive faster than yelling AIDS in a whore-house.

Good Luck
PS--I am trying to make a statement without taking sides.

Post by **mattias** » Fri Sep 17, 2004 11:38 am

Nigel wrote:he also needs to be willing to take the heat for what he shows.

huh? what makes you think i'm not??? the "heat" about my clip is that it has a few moments of soft focus and some dirt on the neg, which i've admitted and explained the reasons for. some people have also said it looks like an average indie short, which i'm also fine with since it's their opinion and close to what i intended anyway.

the rest is about my supposed character flaws and odd career decisions, and is purely some kind of lame revenge for something i hardly even said in another thread, and this i will fight back over, again and again, just for *fun*. :-)

/matt

Post by **mattias** » Fri Sep 17, 2004 11:47 am

MovieStuff wrote:how can he denounce one person's opinion about a web clip based on the premise that it is too small to make any real technical assessment and then turn around and make the very same sort of technical assessment, himself?

that's so old i can't believe you. is this what it's all about? "haha, gotcha, you made a mistake"? a supposed rhetorical or linguistic error on my behalf days ago in another thread? i admit that wasn't the sharpest piece of writing i ever produced, but i wrote it in like 20 seconds and i've since explained my position further in literally dozens of posts. this is a discussion board, and discussions evolve.

/matt

Post by **mattias** » Fri Sep 17, 2004 11:50 am

Santo wrote:I'm just replying to your first post to say "you're welcome" for doubling the number of views on your "super 16 diary" from 700 to about 1400

thanks. there will be no pay though, but transportation, food, dvd and a small never ever to see deferred payment.

/matt

Post by **MovieStuff** » Fri Sep 17, 2004 12:37 pm

mattias wrote:
MovieStuff wrote:how can he denounce one person's opinion about a web clip based on the premise that it is too small to make any real technical assessment and then turn around and make the very same sort of technical assessment, himself?
that's so old i can't believe you.

That's one way to look at it. Another more accurate way is that, after all this time, you really never have addressed the issue at all. Like now, for instance. Instead of admitting you were wrong, you give us this nonsense:

mattias wrote: is this what it's all about? "haha, gotcha, you made a mistake"? a supposed rhetorical or linguistic error on my behalf days ago in another thread?

A "linguistic" error? Please! It was simply a bold faced insult to someone else for daring to express their opinion, just as you are now showing your obvious disdain that I had the nerve to even question you about it. But considering your attitude, it only makes sense that you'd see being rude as "rhetorical" and meaningless.

mattias wrote: i admit that wasn't the sharpest piece of writing i ever produced, but i wrote it in like 20 seconds and i've since explained my position further in literally dozens of posts.

Nonsense. All you've really done is repeatedly stir the pot, hoping enough time and enough posts and different threads will cover the fact that you haven't justified your actions at all. In fact, you were asked many direct questions by me about this very specific issue and you have never, ever answered any of them. This has nothing to do with the technical accuracy of what you wrote and everything to do with your feeling that you can do as you please and not have to answer to anyone for your comments, no matter how rude or blatantly incorrect. And suggesting that talking rough to your friends somehow makes your actions here okay is juvenile. You work in media, dude; don't tell me that you have no idea what perception is all about.

mattias wrote: this is a discussion board, and discussions evolve.

So, evolve! Then maybe you'll be viewed as more of a fellow film maker and less of an arrogant prick out to tell us how wrong we all are.

Roger

Post by **MovieStuff** » Fri Sep 17, 2004 12:41 pm

Not that anyone probably cares but Mattias and I will have to continue our fun little debate in a few days as I am, literally, out the door to the wilds of Utopia where we are buying a house on the Sabinal River! Yippee!

Roger

Post by **mattias** » Fri Sep 17, 2004 12:42 pm

MovieStuff wrote:A "linguistic" error? Please! It was simply a bold faced insult

weren't you commenting on the fact that i said one thing and then contradicted it? i've explained what i meant so don't hold this, yes, linguistic, error against me. whether i insulted someone and whether i contradicted myself are two different issues?

So, evolve!

wow, my charcter arc in this thread is more curved than the imola race track, while yours seems better suited for drag racing.

enjoy your vacation!

/matt

Post by **MovieStuff** » Fri Sep 17, 2004 1:20 pm

mattias wrote:
MovieStuff wrote:A "linguistic" error? Please! It was simply a bold faced insult
weren't you commenting on the fact that i said one thing and then contradicted it? i've explained what i meant so don't hold this, yes, linguistic, error against me. whether i insulted someone and whether i contradicted myself are two different issues?

That you'd feel the need to do either is the bigger issue, don't you think?

mattias wrote: wow, my charcter arc in this thread is more curved than the imola race track, while yours seems better suited for drag racing.

Hah! That is genuinely funny.

Unfortunately, I am dashing out the door and find myself lacking in a witty reply. I'll ponder this over the weekend...

mattias wrote:enjoy your vacation!

Oh yeahhhhhhhhh!
(I'll bring back pics)

Roger

Post by **mattias** » Fri Sep 17, 2004 1:26 pm

MovieStuff wrote:That you'd feel the need to do either is the bigger issue, don't you think?

sure, which is why i think going on and on about the technicalities of my first post is lame and old.

/matt

Post by **MovieStuff** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 3:06 am

mattias wrote:
MovieStuff wrote:That you'd feel the need to do either is the bigger issue, don't you think?
sure, which is why i think going on and on about the technicalities of my first post is lame and old

So you see an insult as a mere "technicality"? Interesting. And, supposedly, this has already been addressed in a previous post? Well, since it's "lame and old" for me to go on and on about it, perhaps you can provide a link where you apologized to the guy you originally insulted? I guess I must have missed that..... ;)

Roger

Post by **super8man** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 7:22 am

You guys crack me up. I only needed to read page 7 (and skim it at that) to get the idea of pages 1 through 6. Jeesh.

And to think I was contemplating posting some of my shorts here for others. I think I will hold off another spell. It's all this stuff that makes me yearn for the old 35mm forums and talk of Canon, Nikon, and Leica raves.

Perhaps the style of this forum should be changed so that I can see the threads like in usenet. Then, I can more easily ignore the he said she said replies and continue to find the technical tidbits that make this forum so inviting in the first place.

Ah well, to each his/her own. Comic relief over. And now back to your regularly scheduled salvo throwing contest. I think Mattias is up next...

Cheers,
m

Post by **ericMartinJarvies** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 8:12 am

mattias wrote:
Freya wrote:...Do they????
emj does, and paul cotto and scot sometimes come dangerously close.

/matt

i've spent almost 2 years on this subject matter, and i cna tell you from first hand experience, using smpte test charts on footage i have filmed under various conditions with various formats, then having various telecine/transfers made, as well as my own, that it is not only possible to obtain an image that is as good as the BEST pro telecine unit in the world, but at this point in time/technology, it is possible to end up with on that is BETTER!! today, the only advantage a $1m> transfer machine has over a DIY machine like my own is SPEED. and i am well on my way to addressing this problem as we speak, as very soon i will have found a good 12bit dual sdi out industrial 1920x1080 camera head capable of 24fps, plugged into a decklink dual sdi hd pro card or an aja 2 card, as well as a 4k 5-10fps camera head for those frames that need ot be really high res for compositing purposes.

i live in the same world as the folks that build these high end machines ... so we are on the same playing field ... so the differance become clearly obvious at this point. go read my posts from last year regarding hd/telecine/storage, and now look at what is starting to become a viable market place. this time next year if you are not getting your transferred film on hard drives/disks of some form, it is only because you do not want to. but be it from the best of the best, or a lonely little diy, the process is basically the same ... light, glass, pixals(or, if you in the business of bleeding the mass ignorant dry, then video should also be included, even if one flavor/format is going to be outdated by the time i make this post).