mikefilosa

That's the one -- and I wish I had one, but not down here... last time I saw one for sale was 2006 - it was near $5k and I definitely didn't have that kinda $$ just lying around! The hand-crank - like a Jack In the Box! Thanks hombre ! This is just another picture..... handcrank on the right a bit less pronounced. Again, of note to me is that the size / dimensions are rather close to your FI Cord...er. An emulation of design and function, perhaps, of the Nagra circa 1957 ? MF

Which is why the IATSE "New Media" contract terms are incredibly bad for the future..... Anyone with any modicum of thinking towards the future could have realized that we will someday be getting ALL of our content online is some way or another ..... except for Tom Short. MF

Customs probably saw a few too many spy movies before coming across this little unit.... Being a clear-shelled demo, no doubt this is truly one of a kind - priceless to some. I was curious, because the size / dimensions of it is VERY similar to the Nagra 2ci, the oldest machine I've come across, circa 1957. Makes me think that, design-wise, well - that was the expectation for a portable reel to reel machine. I'd pop a picture up for you - but I've been through all of the icons on this post, and can't find the one that uploads a picture from my computer and into this post -- (feeble cry for help!??) MF

Wowsa - that is a truly awesome stash..... In addition to "spy" utility, the Nagra SNNs were also used, albeit rarely, by crafty sound men of the times to achieve "hail mary" set-it-and-forget it dialog and efx recording when radio mics were not even in existence... the Nagra Microphone for these things was rather sizeable by todays lav standards. Hiding-the-mic far less an issue than hiding the actual recorder ! ( I'm going to have to do some hunting to find mine - it's down there somewhere! ) Runtime was determined by the actual thickness of the reel to reel tape - different color reels for different "mils" thus the thinner the tape, the longer the runtime - (and the greater the risk regarding sound / dialog volume, print-through, and general tape-based worries) The "wireless" before wireless!! OK, Undercover - what is the machine on the fourth shelf from the top - flush left - black with clear cover - 4" reels (?) - "leaf" logo on right corner ? MF

I finally had a chance to catch this film in 3D today. We had the best seats in the house, and given the long run already, we were two of probably less than 10 people in the whole place...... I have paid very little attention to the whole, evolving, 3D thing in the last few years -- the story, picture, soundtrack, and presentation was a near religious experience for us. It was absolutely stunning, and one of the best values in a cinema event I've ever had.... ever. Just gotta say - MF

Thanks - been waiting for a resolution - if this was a real major threat, they really didn't get it "out there" very well.... MF

After the CBS / National Security red alert this morning, I turned off my Javascript in Firefox preferences before I left for work. Initially Mike's post was "empty" for me - then I turned Javascript back "on" - reloaded this page, and voila - MF

Or Fukada Tree - but picture seems to be much much older than the inception of that technique. Great picture, BTW..... http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CEAQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fepubs.surrey.ac.uk%2F514%2F1%2Ffulltext.pdf&ei=leDwUJvgGJCc8gSgtIHgDA&usg=AFQjCNHNhCWGi3SuaX-Ja0ARb09VYqOAHg&bvm=bv.1357700187,d.eWU http://www.gearslutz.com/board/remote-possibilities-acoustic-music-location-recording/352482-fukada-tree-boundary-microphone-array.html http://www.dpamicrophones.com/en/Mic-University/Surround-Techniques/Fukada-Tree.aspx MF

( Welcome onboard.... ) These do look pretty cool, but might be just a bit dangerous in the hands of the some of the people that get them - especially with a speaker involved. I am often surprised when a client comes up with one of my Lectro IFBs "not working".... and it's perfectly fine. You gotsta turn it ON first! Really ? Jeesh, only ONE knob on it .... MF

The wife gave me three pieces of Le Crueset - starting the set. They'll last my lifetime for sure! Yep - she's a keeper! MF

Thanx - I have a DroidX and an iPad 1, but the wife has a newer iPhone and so now I know of what you speak! That is a neat little connector - I'm willing to bet that some entity will indeed come up with the dream adapter for you / us from "lightning" to Thunderbolt...... wait - what comes first? The lightning, or the thunderbolt ?? MF

Thanks - you have saved me a potentially expensive mistake. MF

When 30 aren't enough !! I did an independent last year on two Epics - Camera A had a sudden fatal heart attack on the first shot! Camera B became "A" while the replacement was procured, and for the duration of the show. MF

Chris - I'm not assuming you to be all-knowing, but I know you are pretty deep into new tech.... What is the lightning cable you are referring to regarding the MacBook Pro... ? I've got a MacBook Pro from the tail end of 2010 - it has a very "thunderbolt" looking connector on the side, (exactly like a thunderbolt connector after a quick visit to Apple.com/support!) but a case-label that indicates it to be a "monitor" connection. Is this an actual Thunderbolt connection that can be used as a data exchange point too? I'm about to purchase an external hard drive, and going "Thunderbolt" capable is an extra $100 - but I'd happily go there for the speed attributes if actually available to me. Time is money!! MF

Steven - I just managed to catch this. I am so impacted I don't even know what to say. It is a magnificent piece of work, and I'll bet there was quite a bit of that involved too. Just the concept / art direction alone had to take a lot of time and effort. The degree of compassion that fueled such an endeavor is most certainly felt here - and if you wanted to say and do something about "it", well you done did. The reality that it is indeed our imbedded consumerism (gotta have the latest greatest.... ) that drives this injustice is not lost. Though the Apple / FoxConn thing probably brought such conditions to the general public light first, it is clear that there are many products and industries over for which this excellent work could apply. The people, AND their resources and environment, are being ruthlessly exploited by the monied & connected political elite. In a "classless society" no less.... (breath!) How apropos given what is going on over RIGHT NOW in China - there is a very significant protest going on - for those that don't pay attention to the news - over censorship and freedom of the press (a newspaper called "The Southern Times" ! ) It's a wide-open thing now, started by young journalists and and now involving many Chinese entertainment stars that are participating (can you believe that? ) ) via their version of Twitter - everyone at some level of risk and exposure. The Chinese people, exposed to the internet are seeing the world through a fresher lens (albeit with some gov't controls). With a new and growing, capitalism-driven level of affluence, they are beginning now to seek different degrees and facets of freedoms that we completely take for granted. As much as I and many have warned, for 15 years, of the threats of job-killing, unbridled Chinese-American commerce, coupled with copyright and patent infringement, and significant industrial espionage (furthering the diminishing of American manufacturing power) - well, this has all lead to a completely out-of-whack balance of trade that, IMO, is not fixable. However passive (or powerless?) on the above, we can be a little bit proud of our little-considered "primary export" - the American concepts of freedom and the rights and privileges we do enjoy, at least in some capacity. (though diminished as of late) And that is apparently now being consumed over there, and it's catchy, and it is going to be a very interesting year coming up.... I hope that your excellent piece makes it over there in some way, and I encourage you to go even one step further, and make a Chinese version (or at least subtitled) and figure out how to get it over there - the impact and the timing could be very very significant. MF

I can't see you - you cam-o-flaged !! MF

Yikes, the header first led me to believe that muscle cars and loud mufflers might be involved ... MF

I remember an incident described by a very credentialed Oscar winner - his backup machilne caused a near fatal electrical issue that took down his whole cart for awhile...... absolutely more trouble than it was worth, absolutely. For those here not familiar with the day and age, the "backup" recorder / huge uncompensated-for investment was SOLEY a product of the long-gone DAT era. MF

Sorry, I forgot to mention there was no actual gas working - sort of pantomiming the action of refrigerator - to - cooking. I would not have let that slide otherwise - the funny part to me was the assumption that the scarf absolutely had to "play" for the pop of color, regardless of it's functional incorrectness. It was also easy to let it slide as the verbage was short, sweet, and barely affected. Scarves are simply not lav-friendly, and I often cringe at their initial presentation, but I only choose my real battles when absolutely necessary. MF

I worked a smaller commercial shoot recently that involved a dozen wardrobe changes for the husband-wife "couple" onscreen, which they were instructed to bring. Lav on the female in the usual place. On one of the last scenes, out comes a wool scarf. I question this just a bit - and I am told by the very young wardrobe lady that it's just for a "pop of color" ... I let it slide, and we proceed with part 1 of the scene. Then the scene evolves into "wife" cooking. On a gas stove! Everyone wears a scarf around open flames, right? I let it slide - it was New Year's Eve after all..... MF

PRECISELY MF

Wow - how many of those even existed back then? Five, ten, twenty? All tubes? MF

So then you are staring at anything else but the big picture. And encouraging others to do so in an effort to be overly critical of a an Oscar-winning sound team on a movie you didn't work on. I thought that maybe you pore over DVDs in similar fashion, actually posting a YouTube of such mic placement "offenses". Thus, I guess you never watch a DVD and freeze the frame looking for fellow mixers' "violations" in your mind. If you never ever do that and If that is not the case - then sorry! What you missed here is that no one really cares about that minutia. One might or could? That interpretation is ridiculous. I can't see anyone inferring the word "better" into anything I said. You are more like "inserting". Maybe he DID utilize this technique. My statement was clearly about taking license to "expose" lavs, if conditions permit, and running with it. Presented as an example as I just watched the movie - Those scenes have the conditions that I feel would permit that. In absolutely no uncertain terms was there ever mention or implication that a better job could even be done, or even needed to be. I never take that familiar path of yours - period. Lincoln has a great chance at getting an Oscar. I wish them and all the other candidates well. There is no "inference" here - you clearly announce to our world of a "tie knot bulge fest" and I guess they didn't "work enough". Sounds kinda "attack-y" to me. If you read somewhere a similar statement about your own work, it would be an attack, given your apparent hypersensitivity. Calling out mixers and teams, pretty much by name as they are rather publicly available, on perceived flaws like that is what I object to and what this whole thing is all about. That is wrong. In this particular instance, it could clearly take many sound people watching the movie completely OUT of the picture looking for your minutia BS, which if feel is way out of line. On a movie that isn't even on the streets yet. Shame on you. My comments are entirely intended for all, but especially intended for newbies and impressionable developing mixers and sound people. Guys and gals, please don't focus on such minutia like "tie knots" and then pass judgement on mixers. I encourage all of you to watch films and shows a bit more objectively, to take in the big picture first. If you want to take any self-educational elements out of a film then analyze it later - but give it a fair objective viewing / listening first. No, read again - as in your "statements from outer-space", your weak attempt to imply that I am being the least bit critical of Mr. Judkins on Lincoln is absolutely retarded and ridiculous. Never called you that..... just the attempt. You need a slightly thicker skin. But hey, if the shoe fits, then wear it. If it doesn't than don't. ?? Then right off the bat, you clearly don't understand the word or it's context. Then what are we doing here? I don't happen to think it's really all that bad, but weenie certainly applies to the overly hyper-critical where "dick" is just too much. Should we take a poll? Fortunately, none of us in Atlanta fits that mold, as stated. Wow. Are you calling me a liar now? Is that low-blow your last defence? To rush to imdb and do a background check and question my credentials For starters, I barely pay attention to imdb - The WikiPedia of our business, where far many more lies exist ON than "off" their pages. For your information, my Emmy precedes the existence of IMDB, and involves the evolution of a fabulous new development in TV Sound at that time called "Stereo". If you are ever in Atlanta, come on by and I'll let you see it and kiss it - the statue that is. Ok then - bye bye now MF

At the risk of your own embarrassment, Please do explain to me how you could possibly "infer", from this one simple paragraph, that I've conveyed the least bit of any negative criticism whatsoever, of Mr Judkins' work on "Lincoln", and then publicly call me to task on such. That is simply retarded. MF

Well, if you must…… 
@Mr. Filosa, in your second post within this topic/thread, you quote me and then open your reply with the comment, "Jeesh, Don't be such a weenie - " I don't know how else to perceive this posting, other than to take it personally. Well that is too bad - beyond my previous explanation / answer to your near-over-the-top response, then I just can't help you, other than hope that you can lighten up just a little bit. Life is too short. You state in your most recent post, that if I were one of your cronies in the ATL, that I would know that being called a "weenie" by you is a term of endearment and a sign of friendship. That is not at ALL what was said - not at all. Read it again, I guess, but take a breath first. Your interpretation is not even close. I don't ever use the word "crony" - these are working colleagues of mine that often go through the same frustrations. In actuality, I don't know of ANY people around here that would go through the trouble of freezing the frame on someone else's work on a "Where's Waldo" hunt for perceived mic irregularities that might lie below other's peoples apparently "higher standards". My statement / opinion - of those that do so - has indeed been heard from my lips many times, though. Many of my colleagues here have heard me state that anyone who goes through such a process to cut down another's work is a being a weenie. My opinion. However, if you called me a "weenie" to my face, I would still take offense to it, regardless of the physical gesticulations that might accompany the comment. Then you probably wouldn't have any understanding of what a friendlier, more collegial personal delivery might be like. It must be difficult reading scripts then, given how hard it might be to imagine anything beyond only the strictly printed word. 

 In my comments, I was merely offering my opinion to the topic/thread, and I felt that they were just that and clearly stated as that. I tried to bring up the question of extensive radio mic use to Kathryn Bigelow and Paul Ottoson, during the Q&A with them, but unfortunately I was not called on by the moderator. As to "cutting down a fellow mixer...." in my mind I'm offering up my opinion of this person's work, I mentioned that I was also not a fan of their combined work on "The Hurt Locker," and I accept that I'm in the minority, as they received several "awards" for their efforts, yet it remains my opinion. Then I guess you accept my opinion, with those in the majority, that the film was excellent. Great. We, in the majority as you so declare, probably all enjoy a larger focus on the big picture and not the petty minutia. Regarding any judgement - your opinion, nor "ours" nor anyones has a flippin' iota of value - Ms Bigelow's film will be a monster and deserved success, I gues she will have a great 1099 in 2013, which is the real final judgement on wether or not a film (and it's soundtrack) is good or bad. And in case there is any further question, it is apparent that this master director has indeed "learned from past experiences" - from Hurt Locker and her war film process - that she's got the right team behind her and they get it DONE, minutia or no minutia. End of story. By the way, you most certainly DID cut down a fellow mixer based, again, on something most no one would initially see, nor attempt to see, nor stop the film and then attempt to discover. You basically stated that the team did not "do enough work" to satisfy your standards regarding the barely perceptible. For what it's worth, that rather veiled attack that most absolutely did trigger my first response to your posting. One could infer, from your comments in regard to the film, "Lincoln," that you are criticizing the work done by Ronald Judkins and crew, Mr. Judkins is a multiple Oscar winner, when you comment about how you might have achieved "great sound..." by exposing a lavalier mic. Forgive me group, but now I'm starting to get a little pissed off - For you to infer that of me in this public forum is idiotic and unacceptable, and from outer space. It now begs me to question how you see and read things. In absolutely no way did I criticize the work of this excellent sounding film. It did sound great. I loved it. I never once stated otherwise, nor ever thought or professed that I could do anything better. For starters, I happened to have watched that movie the night before (without stopping it even once, btw, as the filmmakers intended) and I decided to used it as an example of a point that you have apparently let your emotion completely obscure…. Though I think said point to be initially clear, I guess it needs extra translation, - I was talking about the tremendous license that a sound mixer could take advantage of - to eliminate any possibility of "buried lav syndrome" - by actually exposing tiny lavs on complex costumes coupled with darkly lit sets, conditions that would actually permit the exposure of tiny mic heads - again save for the "worry" that some weenie will freeze the frame someday to search for such "grave offenses" and then lob public criticism at the mixer for taking such license. In the rare air of resources, conditions, and process that he and many mixers of his stature enjoy on projects of that magnitude - maybe lavs don't even come into play. I would hope none ….. 

 What seems to have transpired in this topic/thread, again in my opinion, is a discourse on "standards." I originally stated that I seem to have a different standard than you, and I believe this to be true from your most recent posting. You seem to think, or believe, that I should accept your standards, while I prefer to maintain my own. Where did I state "accept my standards" ? Again, from outer space. My opinion is clear on freezing the frame, that's it. No one's is telling you to do anything, rather to consider, perhaps, another perspective on conditions-driven MOs. The perspective that hardly any consumer would ever see said problem, nor care. I don't leave "big bulgy tie knots" unless I have to. But I am not afraid to, if the conditions so dictate - nor am I afraid of being "exposed" by a frame-freezer, because, as I stated clearly - If you have to freeze the frame to see anything - well I (and my team) WIN. That is my mantra, I guess! Please do maintain your standards, by all means, if that's the way you want to be. I maintain mine, and they are plenty "high", I assure you. It is my personal opinion, that if one sets a high water mark for standards, that if and when you might fall short, you are still closer to the high standard, rather than a lower standard. I have always felt that working within the constraints of a high page count television series daily schedule, if you have a high standard for what you're trying to achieve, when you fall short, you will still be turning in a quality recording, in the minds and ears of most people. This is fairly coherent and understandable statement. Let me assure you that my standards are at least as high as yours. Conditions often force compromises, probably as often for you as for me. I don't obsess - and prefer to move on. 

 I would again point out to you, and the other posters, that I don't set my standard for the "general audience," or "layperson." My standards are set to be judged by other sound people, which is presumably the "audience" here at JWSound. I did suggest that your standards seem to be directed at the "general audience," and that's fine, that's your opinion and your standard. Sorry, are you first suggesting, and now declaring my standards to be somewhat "plebeian"? Again, I assure you that my standards are at least as high as yours.
 I didn't solicit anyone to "stand up" for me. No one said you did any such thing. Where did that come from? instead I solicited their criticism of my work, and offered an example of a similar "tie knot" mic placement, by which I was unhappy. If, and when, my work is bad, I can accept it and will gladly discuss it with the group. Forgive me, but I don't think anyone here ever said anything bad about this scene or this movie except you yourself. Jeesh - stop the public self-flagellation -- I stated, quite clearly, that I didn't see the problem on your YouTube, nor would I care to, nor try to. No one really cares…. which is my sort of my whole point, BTW. Can you, for a moment, grasp that possibility? Seriously. There are going to be some supporters for your opinion, and less supporters for my opinion, that doesn't make either one of us right, or wrong, it merely makes it opinions. I do accept that there will be less supporters for your opinion. And I did not ever state anything about "right" or "wrong". Are we still talking about freezing the frame and criticizing someone elses work without any knowledge whatsoever of the particular issues a fellow mixer is dealing with at that moment? Is that the right or wrong we are talking about? I accept that they are just opinions. It appears to me, that your opinion on this matter, is that the costume department must bend to the needs and demands of the sound department, I respectfully disagree. You read waaay too much into things - my statements have not been at all about adversarial demands nor "bending to the needs" of the sound dept. My comments are much more about working together, offering the possibility of, and often getting, a bit of leniency from wardrobe on mic placements, because the camera and lens are 10-15-20+ feet away, and the shot is medium or wider, and not 12" away staring only at the chest, like the human eye can. My "mantra" often helps in these negotiations, however expressed or translated. I wish you and all the other "weenies" down in the ATL, a prosperous New Year! Great! As stated previously, I don't know of anyone that performs any of the time-consuming, arduous tasks that would earn that classification down this way, but if I ever come across someone, I'll certainly convey your wishes. Now if I typed "Jeesh, don't be a Richard…. " - would we be having this strange discussion? Good luck to you, and hear's to a prosperous, lav-less 2013 ! MF