Letterbox "Censorship"
Sheena Martin
SAVETELE wrote:
>
> We in the anti-censorship movement are pleased to see people taking note of our
> campaign against letterboxing (lettershlocking), the vilest censorship and evil
> of all time. See our web page for the full facts. Freedom!
>
> http://members.aol.com/savetele/savetele.html
> oppose film censorship; frequently asked questions about letterboxing
I think this post just confirms that this guy is only doing this to get a reaction out of people. I mean, what
kind of rallying cry is "Freedom!" for anti-letterboxing advocates? And I got an e-mail reply from him today;
he said in response to my invitation to debate him, "We [apparently referring to himself and the voices in his
head] don't debate letterschlock proponents." In other words, he knows he'll get creamed and dosen't want to
publicly embarass himself. (A bit too late for that, I'd say.) And if he actually considers the BS he puts up
on his page "facts," he really needs help.
Josh
Dennis L
If anything P&S releases are censorship and they cut off much of the image.
** To respond to me via email, remove the x's from primenet **
AndrewV
I think Bernard J. Farber just got a new screen name on AOL.
What a total schmuck.
--
And...@Prodigy.net
Brian Ross
Sheena Martin <jma...@netarrant.net> wrote in article
<348A38...@netarrant.net>...
> SAVETELE wrote:
> >
> > We in the anti-censorship movement are pleased to see people taking
note of our
> > campaign against letterboxing (lettershlocking), the vilest censorship
and evil
> > of all time. See our web page for the full facts. Freedom!
> >
This is certainly a joke, because to equate letterboxing with censorship is
an oxymoron.
Brian
remove xx to respond by email.
Michele Harvey
In article <348A38...@netarrant.net>, Sheena Martin <jma...@netarrant.net> wrote:
>SAVETELE wrote:
>>
>> We in the anti-censorship movement are pleased to see people taking note of
> our
>> campaign against letterboxing (lettershlocking), the vilest censorship and
> evil
>> of all time. See our web page for the full facts. Freedom!
>>
>> oppose film censorship; frequently asked questions about letterboxing
>
>I think this post just confirms that this guy is only doing this to get a
> reaction out of people. I mean, what
>kind of rallying cry is "Freedom!" for anti-letterboxing advocates? And I got
> an e-mail reply from him today;
>he said in response to my invitation to debate him, "We [apparently referring
> to himself and the voices in his
>head] don't debate letterschlock proponents." In other words, he knows he'll
> get creamed and dosen't want to
>publicly embarass himself. (A bit too late for that, I'd say.) And if he
> actually considers the BS he puts up
>on his page "facts," he really needs help.
>
It's just Bernie Farber, ranting again. Don't mind him.
Michele
These views do not necessarily reflect those of my employer.
Please note the address has been modified to annoy spambots.
webm...@film.tierranet.com
In article <3488F7...@netarrant.net>, Josh Martin <jma...@netarrant.net> wrote:
>Well, I'll be damned. It looks as though some other deperate lamer has
>decided to continue Bernard J. Farber's insane quest to destroy the
>practice of letterboxing as we know it. The link is:
>http://members.aol.com/savetele/savetele.html. His "FAQ" isn't nearly as
>large as Bernie's, but it's every bit as ignorant and falsified. Let's
>e-mail this poor deluded soul and see if, unlike Bernie, he will agree to
>an open debate on the pros/cons of letterboxing on these newsgroups.
>
>Josh
Actually Savetele is Bernie Farber. Just with a new e-mail address.
John R. Murray
>> Speaking of letterboxing, Christmas is coming up soon and I was thinking
>> of getting some movies for my family as Xmas presents. I was wondering,
>> since some of these movies are available both in pan-and-scan version
>> and letterboxed versions, which should I get ? The letterboxed version
>> or the pan-and-scan versions ?
>>
>> Ronie J Whalen
In almost every case, letterboxed formats are preferable, but there are some
movies where you want the picture to be right in your face - generally warm
dramas on modest canvases. Mike Leigh's "Secrets & Lies" comes to mind as a
film that would benefit from pan-and-scan. But such examples are very rare,
and I think pan-and-scan is evil. The more that people buy letterboxed
videos, the more that the people in charge will realize the crippling effect
of cropping on thousands of films.
Ack Thpfft!!
On Mon, 08 Dec 1997 16:27:20 -0800, "Ronald J. Whalen"
<rjwh...@pop.cti-md.com> wrote:
>>Ronald J. Whalen wrote:
>>
>> > Josh Martin wrote in message <3488F7...@netarrant.net>...
>> > >Well, I'll be damned. It looks as though some other deperate lamer has
>> > >decided to continue Bernard J. Farber's insane quest to destroy the
>> > >practice of letterboxing as we know it. The link is:
>> > >http://members.aol.com/savetele/savetele.html. His "FAQ" isn't nearly as
>> > >large as Bernie's, but it's every bit as ignorant and falsified. Let's
>> > >e-mail this poor deluded soul and see if, unlike Bernie, he will agree to
>> > >an open debate on the pros/cons of letterboxing on these newsgroups.
>> > >
>>
Go ahead if you like but I e-mailed him on 7 November asking if the
site was some kind of joke and he replied back the same day as
follows:
********
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 22:05:19 -0500 (EST)
From: SAVE...@aol.com
we do not debate letterbox proponents.
********
I didn't bother with it anymore after that.
That may be for the best though - If you look at the web site he
pretty much cries out for psychological counseling.
His argument ranks way up there with "the earth is flat" type thinking
in my book but that's just my opinion and everyone has a right to
their own, correct?
>> > Speaking of letterboxing, Christmas is coming up soon and I was thinking
>> > of getting some movies for my family as Xmas presents. I was wondering,
>> > since some of these movies are available both in pan-and-scan version
>> > and letterboxed versions, which should I get ? The letterboxed version
>> > or the pan-and-scan versions ?
>> >
>> > Ronie J Whalen
I can't personally see ever buying a pan&scan movie again unless it's
the only version made available but I know people who don't like
letterboxing so....
In most discussions that I've had the size of the TV the person owns
is almost always the main problem! I can handle it on any TV 25" and
up no problem but a lot of people can't apparently.
The consensus in my experience is that a 32" TV or larger is perfectly
acceptable for all letterboxed movies so if that's what you have then
letterboxed is the only way to go.
If it's smaller set proceed at your own risk I guess - maybe renting
one first would be a good test for your family if you haven't had much
experience with the format.
Good luck and hope everything works out to your family's
satisfaction!.
Bill
Ryan McGinnis
On 8 Dec 97 22:01:54 GMT, pat...@beethoven.iavalley.cc.ia.us (Patrick
Larkin) wrote:
>I'm wondering if this Bernie person just doesn't "get it." Several years
>ago, I saw a thing on TV introducing letterbox and they used _Blade Runner_
>as an example. They showed the P&S version and then showed the same clip in
>letterbox. WOW. I got it.
He gets it. He just doesn't care. He's on a one man cursade to piss
people off. It works. :)
+-+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
Ryan McGinnis ()_() TLKiaWoL
mcg...@iastate.edu (_) Jay's Mosh
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~mcginnr/lionking/
"Oh look sire, the herd is.. is.. oh my.
I take that back, don't look."
+-+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
The_Razor
On Mon, 08 Dec 1997 13:33:10 GMT, webm...@film.tierranet.com
(webm...@film.tierranet.com) wrote:
>In article <3488F7...@netarrant.net>, Josh Martin <jma...@netarrant.net> wrote:
>>decided to continue Bernard J. Farber's insane quest to destroy the
>>practice of letterboxing as we know it. The link is:
>>http://members.aol.com/savetele/savetele.html. His "FAQ" isn't nearly as
>>large as Bernie's, but it's every bit as ignorant and falsified. Let's
>>e-mail this poor deluded soul and see if, unlike Bernie, he will agree to
>>an open debate on the pros/cons of letterboxing on these newsgroups.
>>
>
>Actually Savetele is Bernie Farber. Just with a new e-mail address.
Just curious...
Is he still claiming to be a lawyer? That one always made me laugh. :)
Cheers,
Todd
RETURN PATH ALTERED TO REDUCE SPAM
Reply to:
mcneeley at megsinet dot net
or
indyfilm at donet dot com
mcneeley
Curtiss Hammock
In article <348cd9fa...@news.megsinet.net>, No_Junk@My_ISP.Com wrote:
>Is he still claiming to be a lawyer? That one always made me laugh. :)
Hmm, I don't know. If he *is* a lawyer, I sure wouldn't want him on *my*
side. I can just see him:
"Your honor, we refuse to debate the prosecutor. The sky is green, so
obviously our client is innocent."
What a schmuck!
Curtiss
---------------------
Curtiss R.Hammock II
MacBeth Design
Atlanta, GA, USA
cur...@macbeth.com
www.macbeth.com
AJ
Michele Harvey wrote:
>
> It's just Bernie Farber, ranting again. Don't mind him.
Just to satisfy my curiousity, and certainly not to encourage any more
freaks like Bernie, what exactly does he achieve? Does he have a group
of fellow twits who all gather around the computer saying "Let's see how
many people called us idiots this week!"?
I cannot see the rewards involved from such pathetic trolling. If
someone can please explain why Bernie and Co. waste their time with this
nonsense, please post. I'd hate to think I was missing out on something
in life.
AJ
--
... one of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire
was that, lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful
termination of their C programs.
-- Robert Firth
Josh Martin
The_Razor wrote:
>
> On Mon, 08 Dec 1997 13:33:10 GMT, webm...@film.tierranet.com
> (webm...@film.tierranet.com) wrote:
> >In article <3488F7...@netarrant.net>, Josh Martin <jma...@netarrant.net> wrote:
> >>Well, I'll be damned. It looks as though some other deperate lamer has
> >>decided to continue Bernard J. Farber's insane quest to destroy the
> >>practice of letterboxing as we know it. The link is:
> >>large as Bernie's, but it's every bit as ignorant and falsified. Let's
> >>e-mail this poor deluded soul and see if, unlike Bernie, he will agree to
> >>an open debate on the pros/cons of letterboxing on these newsgroups.
> >>
> >>Josh
> >
> >Actually Savetele is Bernie Farber. Just with a new e-mail address.
>
> Just curious...
>
He's got a personal homepage,
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/1152/. The only personal
information he gives is that his sister and mother were Polish died at a
concentration camp in WWII. Of course, I'm as suspicious about this
"information" as the bit about the lawyer (which is mentioned nowhere on
his page).
Josh
Luis Canau
Bi...@Bloom.County.com (Ack Thpfft!!) wrote:
someone wrote:
[...]
>> His "FAQ" isn't nearly as
>>> > >large as Bernie's, but it's every bit as ignorant and falsified. Let's
>>> > >e-mail this poor deluded soul and see if, unlike Bernie, he will agree to
>>> > >an open debate on the pros/cons of letterboxing on these newsgroups.
Is there any doubt they are one and the same person? I don't believe it's
possible to exist two people like that.
(...)
>The consensus in my experience is that a 32" TV or larger is perfectly
>acceptable for all letterboxed movies so if that's what you have then
>letterboxed is the only way to go.
I watch everything in a 21 inch set, and I have no problems with widescreen
movies. Well, "The Wild Bunch" looks a little "small". But at least is all -
or almost - in there. Strangelly enough, "Ben-Hur" which was shown on TV at
around 2.66:1 didn't look so small.
Luis Canau___________________________________________________________
<luis....@mail.EUnot.pt>
(please change EUnot to EUnet/p.f. troque EUnot por EUnet)
HP de Cinema: http://home.EUnet.pt/id005098/cinedie (in Portuguese)
P r o - w i d e s c r e e n
_____________________________________________________________________
Nigel Stone
John R. Murray wrote in message <66i6dt$b...@ecuador.earthlink.net>...
>>> Speaking of letterboxing, Christmas is coming up soon and I was thinking
>>> of getting some movies for my family as Xmas presents. I was wondering,
>>> since some of these movies are available both in pan-and-scan version
>>> and letterboxed versions, which should I get ? The letterboxed version
>>> or the pan-and-scan versions ?
>>>
>>> Ronie J Whalen
Good God! Its not in almost every case, its every case that benefits from
letterboxing. I can't believe anyone would want P&S over Ltrbx. Even in the
badly understood area of cropping the top and bottom for the theaters and
then removing the crops for VHS, you still want Ltrbx, because otherwise you
destroy the shot. And who cares if its smaller, the picture is more pleasing
to the eye and its not like they're making you read any text or anything.
Yeah right Secrets & Lies would be better Panned & Scanned! I can't believe
anyone would say that! I don't want some nerdy technician in California
destroying what Mike Leigh did. Would it benefit from 0.85 of the picture
missing every second? Would it benefit from the rythym being cut to pieces
because of jump cuts? and finally would it benefit from possible having one
or two of those horrible P&S pans (you know the ones I mean) If this reaches
you before Christmas, don't whatever you do, buy P&S!
StrawDogZZ
>Yeah right Secrets & Lies would be better Panned & Scanned! I can't believe
>anyone would say that! I don't want some nerdy technician in California
>destroying what Mike Leigh did.
The Pan/Scan was not and could not have been used on "Secrets and Lies" since
the film was shot in about a 1:66 ratio"(There is nowhere to Pan). The Pan/Scan
process is only used on widescreen films e.g 2:35:1. The S&L laser was a full
screen transfer.
Brewing Tea
:> The more that people buy letterboxed
:>videos, the more that the people in charge will realize the crippling effect
:>of cropping on thousands of films.
Speaking of the "crippling effect", that is more true than you may
realize!
On some older movies, I think they literally *cut* the frames to make
a film P&S. The reason I say this is that on some older movies that
are letterboxed, there are "join lines" where they put it back
together! It's pretty lame, and I sincerely hope they don't do that
anymore... :)
Brewing Tea -- He's brisk, baby!
Remove the underscore "_" to reply via e-mail...
--------------------------------
Visit my newly updated web-page at:
http://www.eng.usf.edu/~brewingt
--------------------------------
Burbank74
I'm very much an advocate of widescreen and letterboxing on video -
particularly with 2.35:1 films. But there are cases where a film is hurt by
being "masked" and a fullscreen version is preferable. Take a look at the
laserdisc of ROMEO IS BLEEDING - all of the shots look cramped - as if somebody
cut off the top and bottom of the frame (the "fullscreen" VHS is much more
satisfying.) And compare the fullscreen and letterboxed discs on A BRONX TALE -
the fullscreen version looks great - the "masked"version is just that - the
fullscreen version with the top and bottom covered up.
Also take a look at JENNIFER 8 - the compositions are cramped in the
letterboxed edition (they're no great shakes in the fullscreen either but at
least it's better.)
I think this comes from certain films being shot by cinematographers who think
television and not theratrical exhibition - therefore you get some rather
unfortunate and problematic pictorial compositions.
Again in support of letterboxing - I just finished watching MY BEST FRIEND'S
WEDDING - and EVERY shot was beautifully composed for scope (2.35:1) - I can't
imagine what a travesty this film would be in pan & scan....
"What one loves about life are the things that fade." - Michael Cimino's
HEAVEN'S GATE
Roachy
On 12 Dec 1997 07:20:42 GMT, burb...@aol.com (Burbank74) wrote:
>I'm very much an advocate of widescreen and letterboxing on video -
>particularly with 2.35:1 films. But there are cases where a film is hurt by
>being "masked" and a fullscreen version is preferable. Take a look at the
>laserdisc of ROMEO IS BLEEDING - all of the shots look cramped - as if somebody
>cut off the top and bottom of the frame (the "fullscreen" VHS is much more
>satisfying.) And compare the fullscreen and letterboxed discs on A BRONX TALE -
>the fullscreen version looks great - the "masked"version is just that - the
>fullscreen version with the top and bottom covered up.
I dont want to bag letterbox (hey, im a newfound letterbox lover) but
i just got my 2.35:1 DD laserdisc of True Lies the other day and i
thought it would be fun to run side by side (i brought in another
telly) the Pan and Scan PAL video i already own. Although there
differnces were amazing in parts of the movie, certain scenes in the
movie appered to be "masked" (for example on part where arnie is using
the gas truck's hose as a flame thrower, there was a lot more
information in the 4:3 video to the top and bottom and the same
information to the sides. I was just wondering if there are any other
short occurances of this in any recent movies. Once again, I'm not
doing this to bag letterboxing, as I love it, but was just seeing if
anyone else has found similar things.
Regards,
Greg Roach
(roa...@netlink.com.au)
Daniel Booth
In article <3490c0fb...@news.usf.edu>, brew...@ij.net (Brewing Tea)
wrote:
> On some older movies, I think they literally *cut* the frames to make
> a film P&S. The reason I say this is that on some older movies that
> are letterboxed, there are "join lines" where they put it back
> together! It's pretty lame, and I sincerely hope they don't do that
> anymore... :)
Might you be referring to letterboxed video copies of "How the West Was
Won" or "Wonderful World of the Brothers Grimm"? If so, you are seeing the
the join lines in the original three-panel Cinerama process. If not, your
post baffles me.
Dan
CGI department
Brewing Tea wrote:
>
> :> The more that people buy letterboxed
> :>videos, the more that the people in charge will realize the crippling effect
> :>of cropping on thousands of films.
>
> Speaking of the "crippling effect", that is more true than you may
> realize!
>
> a film P&S. The reason I say this is that on some older movies that
> are letterboxed, there are "join lines" where they put it back
> together! It's pretty lame, and I sincerely hope they don't do that
> anymore... :)
>
>
> Remove the underscore "_" to reply via e-mail...
>
> --------------------------------
> Visit my newly updated web-page at:
>
> http://www.eng.usf.edu/~brewingt
> --------------------------------
Don't think you have that right. Maybe you were looking at a cinerama
film or something.
mf
AJ
I could be wrong, but seeing as how this is a James Cameron film, it
may have been shot in Super35. If this is the case, the letterboxed
transfer will contain less info top and bottom, but slighty more left
and right. Regardless, it's usually what the director intended, and it's
what you see in the theatre. There are some great FAQs around that will
tell you about the use of Super35, but try this site for a comparison of
LTX vs P&S using Super35....
http://www.stwing.upenn.edu/~bjorn/ht/
Look under "What is widescreen, and why should I invest in it?"
AJ
Orin Shemin
Brewing Tea wrote:
> :> The more that people buy letterboxed
> :>videos, the more that the people in charge will realize the crippling effect
> :>of cropping on thousands of films.
>
> Speaking of the "crippling effect", that is more true than you may
> realize!
>
> On some older movies, I think they literally *cut* the frames to make
> a film P&S. The reason I say this is that on some older movies that
> are letterboxed, there are "join lines" where they put it back
> together! It's pretty lame, and I sincerely hope they don't do that
> anymore... :)
What titles are you experiencing "Join Lines" in? Since, as you may know any
Film produced in Cinerama does have join lines, from the effect of having the
three seperate pieces of film optically joined into an anamorphic or wide screen
print. Some tiltes include: "How the West was Won" and "The Wonderful World of
the Brothers Grim" among others.
Jack Laughlin
In rec.arts.movies.current-films Nigel Stone <nst...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
: Good God! Its not in almost every case, its every case that benefits from
: letterboxing. I can't believe anyone would want P&S over Ltrbx. Even in the
: badly understood area of cropping the top and bottom for the theaters and
Not in anyway defending P&S (which sucks) but there is at least one case
where P&S is preferable over LTX, and thats for movies shot in Super35.
You actually lose more than you gain in films like The Abyss, which is
why I always find it funny that places like suncoast use the Abyss as its
example for why you should get the letterbox version. (I haven't seen that
particular sign up in awhile so maybe they did finally learn)
But 99% of the time Letterbox is the way to go.
Mike Kohary
Well, you could say you get a bit more picture on the top and bottom,
but it's not the way it was presented in the theater, and for me that's
the defining point. Directors like Cameron shoot their films with its
future TV presentation in mind. However, the cameraman sees the frame
as it will be shown on the big screen, and that's the way it's shot.
I'd rather see Abyss letterboxed simply because that's the way it looked
on the big screen.
> But 99% of the time Letterbox is the way to go.
Absolutely. :)
Mike
--
Seattle, WA
http://kohary.simplenet.com
Ryan McGinnis
On Sat, 13 Dec 1997 03:20:48 -0800, Mike Kohary <mko...@serv.net> wrote:
>Jack Laughlin wrote:
>Well, you could say you get a bit more picture on the top and bottom,
>but it's not the way it was presented in the theater, and for me that's
>the defining point. Directors like Cameron shoot their films with its
>future TV presentation in mind. However, the cameraman sees the frame
>as it will be shown on the big screen, and that's the way it's shot.
>I'd rather see Abyss letterboxed simply because that's the way it looked
>on the big screen.
Actually, I believe the cameraman sees it the way it will be shot for TV.
Cameron later goes back and digitally selects the theatrical cut (and the
TV cut, too)
I don't know _too_ much about his process though... anyone else care to
help? :)
Mike Kohary
Ryan McGinnis wrote:
>
> On Sat, 13 Dec 1997 03:20:48 -0800, Mike Kohary <mko...@serv.net> wrote:
>
> >Jack Laughlin wrote:
>
> >Well, you could say you get a bit more picture on the top and bottom,
> >but it's not the way it was presented in the theater, and for me that's
> >the defining point. Directors like Cameron shoot their films with its
> >future TV presentation in mind. However, the cameraman sees the frame
> >as it will be shown on the big screen, and that's the way it's shot.
> >I'd rather see Abyss letterboxed simply because that's the way it looked
> >on the big screen.
>
> Actually, I believe the cameraman sees it the way it will be shot for TV.
> Cameron later goes back and digitally selects the theatrical cut (and the
> TV cut, too)
>
> I don't know _too_ much about his process though... anyone else care to
> help? :)
Would you believe that I have the exact link that answers this for us?
:)
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~leopold/Ld/FilmToVideo/index.html
Scroll down to chapter 4.4, near the bottom of the page, which uses T2
as an example of Super 35. It states that the cameraman sees the
widescreen area, but you are correct that Cameron apparently digitally
selects how the pan-n-scan version will look.
Interesting stuff; be sure to check it out.
Brewing Tea
:>What titles are you experiencing "Join Lines" in? Since, as you may know any
:>Film produced in Cinerama does have join lines, from the effect of having the
:>three seperate pieces of film optically joined into an anamorphic or wide screen
:>print. Some tiltes include: "How the West was Won" and "The Wonderful World of
:>the Brothers Grim" among others.
Yeah, I know... someone already informed me I was wrong. I have
never seen a movie with "join lines", I just heard about them.
And I heard wrong, so I'm sorry.
Matt Martinez
Mike Kohary wrote:
> Well, you could say you get a bit more picture on the top and bottom,
> but it's not the way it was presented in the theater, and for me that's
> the defining point. Directors like Cameron shoot their films with its
> future TV presentation in mind. However, the cameraman sees the frame
> as it will be shown on the big screen, and that's the way it's shot.
> I'd rather see Abyss letterboxed simply because that's the way it looked
> on the big screen.
Super 35. Ugh! I am actually offended by this process. Movies are meant to be
seen on a theater screen. I hate the idea of pandering to the home video people,
and especially pandering to people who don't like "them black bars messin' up the
pitcher."
--
Matt Martinez <mma...@bgnet.bgsu.edu>
ni...@ex.starwars.modeler.com
I've seen a couple of films (though I can't recall specific ones
right now) where you have a typical conversation-in-a-car scene, where
the camera in on the hood and both actors are in frame...or at least
they're supposed to be. But in the televised version, they either pan back
and forth like some damn tennis match, or in one case (I wish I could
remember the title, it was something I saw just last week) they simply
cut each actor's face in half in trying to fit them both on screen. Both
methods are extremely irritating because you miss the actors' facial
reactions during the conversation.
Joshua E Millard
: I've seen a couple of films (though I can't recall specific ones
Amen. I've only seen The Professional once, and that was on video. While
I enjoyed the film itself a great deal, I was annoyed as shit by all the
panning. It really kills dramatic tension for me when a shot has to be
panned artificially to get the faces on the screen.
--
Joshua Millard == pu...@wpi.edu && www.wpi.edu/~pulp
.-'-. '-.-' .-'-. '-.-'
Yo' momma's .sig is so big, she's got to use a full screen editor just to,
um, edit it. Yeah.
Curtiss Hammock
In article <3492D3...@serv.net>, mko...@serv.net wrote:
>Ryan McGinnis wrote:
>> I don't know _too_ much about his process though... anyone else care to
>> help? :)
>
>Would you believe that I have the exact link that answers this for us?
>:)
>
>http://www.cs.tut.fi/~leopold/Ld/FilmToVideo/index.html
What a great web page! It should be required reading for every video
purchaser. Believe me that I have bookmarked that sucker. Thanks for
pointing us to it.
Mike Kohary
Curtiss Hammock wrote:
>
> In article <3492D3...@serv.net>, mko...@serv.net wrote:
> >Would you believe that I have the exact link that answers this for us?
> >:)
> >
> >http://www.cs.tut.fi/~leopold/Ld/FilmToVideo/index.html
>
> What a great web page! It should be required reading for every video
> purchaser. Believe me that I have bookmarked that sucker. Thanks for
> pointing us to it.
No problem. If anyone is looking for more pages like that (letterbox
advocacy and explanation), go to my page at
http://kohary.simplenet.com/movies.htm; I have a section of links to
pages on that specific topic.
Paul Coddington
Jack Laughlin <num...@dakota.gate.net> wrote in article
<66tfhd$i...@dakota.gate.net>...
[snip]
|
| Not in anyway defending P&S (which sucks) but there is at least one case
| where P&S is preferable over LTX, and thats for movies shot in Super35.
The problem is that it is hard enough to compose a picture in one aspect
ratio let alone two at the same time - if the film has been shot for
widescreen, the picture is most likely composed to look best in widescreen.
Opening up the letterbox adds more picture, but the rules of picture
composition may be broken.
For example: Compare a head-and-shoulder portrait by a professional
photographer with the subject carefully balanced within the frame with an
amateur "line-em-up-against-the-wall-and-shoot" photograph. The latter has
more picture around the subject (typically, a tiny face in the middle of
the frame with lots of headroom) - but it is not as pleasing to the eye as
the professionally composed picture.
--
PAUL CODDINGTON
pa...@mail.act.apana.org.au
http://www.geocities.com/athens/2488
PEC Pink Axolotl is a non-sensical disorganisation...
Bryant Frazer
In alt.video.laserdisc Joshua E Millard <pu...@WPI.EDU> expounded thusly:
: Amen. I've only seen The Professional once, and that was on video. While
: I enjoyed the film itself a great deal, I was annoyed as shit by all the
: panning. It really kills dramatic tension for me when a shot has to be
: panned artificially to get the faces on the screen.
THE PROFESSIONAL is actually relatively mild in this regard. You want to
see a movie destroyed by pan and scan, try watching a tape of THE GOOD,
THE BAD & THE UGLY sometime. A cropped 16mm print of this movie was
actually the final impetus for my purchase of a laserdisc player.
-bf-
DEEP FOCUS (Movie Reviews)
http://www.panix.com/~bfrazer/flicker/
"I've squandered everything I have
on lawyers, shrinks and whores."
Mike Kohary
Bryant Frazer wrote:
>
> In alt.video.laserdisc Joshua E Millard <pu...@WPI.EDU> expounded thusly:
>
> : Amen. I've only seen The Professional once, and that was on video. While
> : I enjoyed the film itself a great deal, I was annoyed as shit by all the
> : panning. It really kills dramatic tension for me when a shot has to be
> : panned artificially to get the faces on the screen.
>
> THE PROFESSIONAL is actually relatively mild in this regard. You want to
> see a movie destroyed by pan and scan, try watching a tape of THE GOOD,
> THE BAD & THE UGLY sometime. A cropped 16mm print of this movie was
> actually the final impetus for my purchase of a laserdisc player.
Ugh, there you go. GBU is probably the worst pan-n-scan transfer
*ever*. It is utterly unwatchable on regular television. Another
beauty is "Jaws", since Spielberg constantly fills a 2.35 frame from
left to right with his actors. Again, the TV version is simply
unwatchable; the letterbox tape or disc is a must-have for any Spielberg
fan.
Matt Martinez
Mike Kohary wrote:
> Ugh, there you go. GBU is probably the worst pan-n-scan transfer
> *ever*. It is utterly unwatchable on regular television.
Strangely enough, the only time I've seen this film has been on television (TNT),
but it was shown in letterbox format. All I know is that I don't need to see a
pan and scan version to realize that the only way to see THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND
THE UGLY is in letterbox format. Has this trilogy (inclusing A FISTFULL OF
DOLLARS and FOR A FEW DOLLARS MORE) been released to video in widescreen, by the
way?
--
Matt Martinez <mma...@bgnet.bgsu.edu>
Mike Kohary
Matt Martinez wrote:
> Strangely enough, the only time I've seen this film has been on television (TNT),
> but it was shown in letterbox format. All I know is that I don't need to see a
> pan and scan version to realize that the only way to see THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND
> THE UGLY is in letterbox format. Has this trilogy (inclusing A FISTFULL OF
> DOLLARS and FOR A FEW DOLLARS MORE) been released to video in widescreen, by the
> way?
Yes, they are all available - thankfully - on widescreen VHS (and I
presume laserdisc as well), and I think maybe even DVD, though I'm not
sure about that. All three movies are atrocious in pan-n-scan. I'm
glad TNT is finally starting to pick up on that fact.
Bryant Frazer
In alt.video.laserdisc Paul Coddington <pa...@mail.act.apana.org.au> expounded thusly:
: Jack Laughlin <num...@dakota.gate.net> wrote in article
: <66tfhd$i...@dakota.gate.net>...
: | Not in anyway defending P&S (which sucks) but there is at least one case
: | where P&S is preferable over LTX, and thats for movies shot in Super35.
: The problem is that it is hard enough to compose a picture in one aspect
: ratio let alone two at the same time - if the film has been shot for
: widescreen, the picture is most likely composed to look best in widescreen.
Not to mention that special effects shots often have to be panned and
scanned anyway, since they weren't rendered to the full height of the
negative.
William Beutler
> Go ahead if you like but I e-mailed him on 7 November asking if the
> site was some kind of joke and he replied back the same day as
> follows:
>
> we do not debate letterbox proponents.
> ********
Yeah, I did the same thing, and he responded the same way, except he added
something like
lettershlocking is wrong and it will end
Amused yet? I'm sort of having fun with this guy. I'll post more as news is
forthcoming.
Luis Canau
ni...@ex.starwars.modeler.com wrote:
> I've seen a couple of films (though I can't recall specific ones
>right now) where you have a typical conversation-in-a-car scene, where
>the camera in on the hood and both actors are in frame...or at least
>they're supposed to be.[...]
When "Heat" was shown on TV I had my WS copy on the VCR, just for "fun". Ugh.
It's quite incomprehensible. And there are lot's of scenes where they don't
bother to pan to show the other person. It's a matter of opinion where it
shouldn't exist. Kind of "is it important to show that guy's face in this
moment?" When Pacino is in the car going to the bank you don't see the driver.
The whole shot-out scene calls for a bucket. There's even one shot, when a car
is using all the 2.35 frame, when they have the scanner on one side then pull
it to the other at ultra-speed to show bullet holes. Disgusting.
Oh, and the claim "Pacino and De Niro together" is a great laugh! (Tough I'm
not sure you actually can see both their *faces* at the same time, in the WS
copy...)
Luis Canau___________________________________________________________
<luis....@mail.EUnot.pt>
(please change EUnot to EUnet/p.f. troque EUnot por EUnet)
HP de Cinema: http://home.EUnet.pt/id005098/cinedie (in Portuguese)
P r o - w i d e s c r e e n
_____________________________________________________________________
geoffrey alexander
"William Beutler" <beu...@pcez.com> writes:
>Amused yet? I'm sort of having fun with this guy. I'll post more as news is
>forthcoming.
Nah, don't bother. In fact, let me insist: PLEASE don't bother. We've been
having to put up with it for a >long< time and we really need no more.
Believe me, we seen all the fun he has to offer.
--
Geoffrey Alexander
finger geof...@beethoven.iavalley.cc.ia.us
for pgp public key, website addresses, and other fun things.
Adam Wade
The P/S version of THE JUROR is the most distracting thing I have ever
seen. When it "pans" it does this weird thing; the only way I could
describe it is like in certain side scrolling video games when you cross
from one area to another (on the same level -- think METROID) the screen
kind of moves while your charachter stays in the same place. I think it's
on HBO this month.
Adam, who realized after he pressed "send" that people would immediately
begin laughing because he mentioned THE JUROR...
--
Read the NEW SCREAM film FAQ at : http://www.cyberTours.com/~merch/
bab...@ix.netcom.com
Adam Wade wrote:
>
> The P/S version of THE JUROR is the most distracting thing I have ever
> seen. When it "pans" it does this weird thing; the only way I could
> describe it is like in certain side scrolling video games when you cross
> from one area to another (on the same level -- think METROID) the screen
> kind of moves while your charachter stays in the same place. I think it's
> on HBO this month.
That sounds similar to the problem with MULTIPLICITY, which is the worst
pan-and-scan job I've ever seen.
Jack Laughlin
: Oh, and the claim "Pacino and De Niro together" is a great laugh! (Tough I'm
: not sure you actually can see both their *faces* at the same time, in the WS
: copy...)
Multiplicity is also quite, quite bad in P&S. Half the time they don't
even bother to pan to the person speaking so dialogue just floats from
off screen.
Benjamin Johnson
The only place I've seen it done that badly was on the P/S version of El Cid.
I didn't like the movie, anyway, but that made it worse.
Adam Wade wrote:
> The P/S version of THE JUROR is the most distracting thing I have ever
> seen. When it "pans" it does this weird thing; the only way I could
> describe it is like in certain side scrolling video games when you cross
> from one area to another (on the same level -- think METROID) the screen
> kind of moves while your charachter stays in the same place. I think it's
> on HBO this month.
>
Benjamin Johnson
Nigel Stone wrote:
> Jack Laughlin wrote in message <66tfhd$i...@dakota.gate.net>...
> >Not in anyway defending P&S (which sucks) but there is at least one case
> where P&S is preferable over LTX, and thats for movies shot in Super35. You
> actually lose more than you gain in films like The Abyss, which is why I
> always find it funny that places like suncoast use the Abyss as its example
> for why you should get the letterbox version. (I haven't seen that
> particular sign up in awhile so maybe they did finally learn)
> >
> >But 99% of the time Letterbox is the way to go.
> >
> >num...@gate.net
> >
>
> While I agree in part, I think that the 'true' version of the film is the
> one shown in theaters. That's where (for me anyway) movies trully exist. We
> at home can emulate the the theater, but not match it, eg. no (or much
> smaller) audience, comparatively bad picture, smaller picture etc. So
> anything I can do to recreate the feel of the theater (which Ltrbxing does
> for me instantly) the better. I also think that we should remeber that James
> Cameron is a bit of a wierdo in that he is definitely the only 'name'
> director that I know of (well maybe Roland Emerick, but only for ID4) who
> actually pays great consideration to how his films look P&S'ed which he
> himself has said he prefers at home(!) 99.999% of other directors do not
> follow this though. So let's just say, James Cameron its up to you; ever
> other director that's ever drawn breath you want to avoid P&S like the
> plague. Maybe however Cameron has a point, because that's where all movies
> eventually end up and they're avaliable on video forever, but maybe, what,
> only a year at theaters. Any thoughts on this?
Yes. It is depressingly true. We need some powerful director to stick to
his/her guns, and have enough control over their production to make a mega-hit
that everyone wants to see, and then refuse to release it on video. That'll
show 'em!!
Stephen Rowley
On 14 Dec 1997 08:35:21 GMT, ni...@ex.starwars.modeler.com wrote:
> I've seen a couple of films (though I can't recall specific ones
>right now) where you have a typical conversation-in-a-car scene, where
>the camera in on the hood and both actors are in frame...or at least
>they're supposed to be. But in the televised version, they either pan back
>and forth like some damn tennis match, or in one case (I wish I could
>remember the title, it was something I saw just last week) they simply
>cut each actor's face in half in trying to fit them both on screen. Both
>methods are extremely irritating because you miss the actors' facial
>reactions during the conversation.
You've missed a third option: new cuts. that's the problem with pan
and scan; it potentially changes virtually everything. Framing, mise
en scene, editing, camera movements...
Stephen Rowley
s.rowley@Not!ugrad.unimelb.edu.au
(To e-mail me, remove the Not! from my address)
Movie reviews & essays at Cinephobia:
http://www.werple.net.au/~lerowley/cinephob.htm
Ryan McGinnis
On Sun, 14 Dec 1997 02:16:21 -0500, Matt Martinez <mma...@bgnet.bgsu.edu>
wrote:
>Super 35. Ugh! I am actually offended by this process. Movies are meant to be
>seen on a theater screen. I hate the idea of pandering to the home video people,
>and especially pandering to people who don't like "them black bars messin' up the
>pitcher."
<shrugs> It may not be as good as letterbox, but it sure beats Pan and
Scan.
Ryan McGinnis
On 14 Dec 1997 08:35:21 GMT, ni...@ex.starwars.modeler.com wrote:
> I've seen a couple of films (though I can't recall specific ones
>right now) where you have a typical conversation-in-a-car scene, where
>the camera in on the hood and both actors are in frame...or at least
>they're supposed to be. But in the televised version, they either pan back
>and forth like some damn tennis match, or in one case (I wish I could
>remember the title, it was something I saw just last week) they simply
>cut each actor's face in half in trying to fit them both on screen. Both
>methods are extremely irritating because you miss the actors' facial
>reactions during the conversation.
<nods> Good example: Pulp Fiction, end scene.
Nigel Stone
Gojira9
>>Has this trilogy (inclusing A FISTFULL OF
>> DOLLARS and FOR A FEW DOLLARS MORE) been released to video in >>widescreen,
by the
> >way?
>Yes, they are all available - thankfully - on widescreen VHS (and I
>presume laserdisc as well), and I think maybe even DVD, though I'm not
>sure about that. All three movies are atrocious in pan-n-scan.
Yes, the Eastwood/Leone trilogy have been released on LD in LBX (either as a
box set or individualy -- I'm assuming the box set is LBX! I bought mine
individually)...THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY has been scheduled for DVD
release with an extra 14-15 minutes of footage not seen in the US (I think all
3 were trimmed for length for US release...anyone know for certain?).
My earliest memories of horrible P&S were those Vincent Price/Roger Corman/Poe
movies, which really didn't 'pan' either...they just seemed to cut back & forth
and made very little sense. The LBX versions of these on LD have been a
godsend!
mark
|||||||||||||||||||||
Mark Rollie
Mpls, MN
"monsters, matinees, and Mandan, ND's Showboat Cinema - what a childhood"
geoffrey alexander
"Nigel Stone" <nst...@ihug.co.nz> writes:
Like others here, I've worked as a projectionist and managed theatres; I
don't think most people are aware of how aspect ratios differ even between
auditoriums in the same multiplex -- and DEFINITELY in the older houses. To
speak of a single 'theatrical ratio' is ludicrous. for that reason, as far
as what is seen on video, I'd prefer the director's intentions, where
available -- even if this means (as in Kubrick's case) he will use the full
frame of an Academy print of The Shining or FMJ even though they were masked
to various wider ratios in the theatre. He's a stickler for how his films
appear on video (cf. Dr. Strangelove's variable aspects) and if that's what
he wants to present, that's what I want to see.
Kristina Beale
William Beutler (beu...@pcez.com) wrote:
: > Go ahead if you like but I e-mailed him on 7 November asking if the
: > site was some kind of joke and he replied back the same day as
: > follows:
: >
: > we do not debate letterbox proponents.
: > ********
: Yeah, I did the same thing, and he responded the same way, except he added
: something like
: lettershlocking is wrong and it will end
: Amused yet? I'm sort of having fun with this guy. I'll post more as news is
: forthcoming.
I got the same message back, except it was "we do not debate letterbox
proponents they are wrong."
I kept at it, and he (they?) wrote back telling me what an idiot I was
because I couldn't understand how it was censorship. It was a lot of fun,
but he stopped playing. :~(
--
Kristina Beale
Comptroller's Office
Bilge Ebiri
Benjamin Johnson <"pm...@northcoast.com"@northcoast.com> wrote:
We need some powerful director to stick to
>his/her guns, and have enough control over their production to make a mega-hit
>that everyone wants to see, and then refuse to release it on video. That'll
>show 'em!!
Spielberg and Lucas used to do this. It took ages for E.T. and RAIDERS
to appear on video, as did STAR WARS.
Until recently, that's what Disney did, too, with its library.
Say what you will about the relative merits of those films themselves,
but you don't get too much more powerful than Disney and Spielberg.
--B.
Matt Martinez
Nigel Stone wrote:
> Maybe however Cameron has a point, because that's where all movies
> eventually end up and they're avaliable on video forever, but maybe, what,
> only a year at theaters. Any thoughts on this?
Yes, I have some thoughts on this: Movies are meant to be made for theaters and
theater screens. To do anything else, you might as well make it a
direct-to-video release or a TV movie. I am an avid home video watcher, but
that doesn't mean I want them to compromise any of the movies' filmic integrity
just to avoid any "viewing difficulties."
--
Matt Martinez <mma...@bgnet.bgsu.edu>
Benjamin Johnson
Try agreeing with him and see what happens.
AJ
Ryan McGinnis wrote:
>
> On 14 Dec 1997 08:35:21 GMT, ni...@ex.starwars.modeler.com wrote:
>
> > I've seen a couple of films (though I can't recall specific ones
> >right now) where you have a typical conversation-in-a-car scene, where
> >the camera in on the hood and both actors are in frame...or at least
> >they're supposed to be.
<snip>
> <nods> Good example: Pulp Fiction, end scene.
Better example: Pulp Fiction, all scenes.
AJ
--
Why experiment on animals with so many fundamentalists out there?
Chris Pierson
I did, when he first turned up. Didn't get much response, enthusiastic or
otherwise. Ergo, the guy's a troll, albeit an almost psychotically
singleminded one.
In article <675dl4$40g$1...@news.northcoast.com>,
Benjamin Johnson <"pm...@northcoast.com"@northcoast.com> wrote:
--
****************************************************************************
Chris Pierson ** Want me never, ever, EVER to consider giving you or your
Game Designer ** company money? Great! Keep those spam ads coming!
****************************************************************************
AJ
Also, if they're going to be available on video forever, and the
standard tv format is changing to 16:9, albeit rather slowly, then
letterboxing, especially on "eternal" formats (LD and DVD) makes more
sense than abortive P&S transfers.
Jay Prychidny
Chris Pierson wrote:
>
> I did, when he first turned up. Didn't get much response, enthusiastic or
> otherwise. Ergo, the guy's a troll, albeit an almost psychotically
> singleminded one.
I sent him a rather long essay about it quite a while ago about how his
page was single-sided. I was being completly truthful, pointing out
some glaring errors on his page and told him the pros AND cons of
letterboxing. My letter was not single-sided and I don't think I put in
any of my own opinions, other than an offhand remark saying I preffered
letterbox. I asked him to e-mail me back to try to reason with him, but
all I got was a three line message which said something to the effect
of:
You are entitled to your opinion
We will continue to express ours
Letterboxing is wrong and we must put a stop to it
Or something like that. It really cheesed me off because I didn't
express my opinion. <sigh>. It even says on his page (or rather it
did... don't know if it does now) that he does not want ANY e-mails from
people for letterboxing. It also says that his page is sensitive to
both sides of the debate... It gives me a headache just thinking about
him again. Oh well, I would suggest to avoid talking to him. It's just
going to be a big waste of your time (Funny, when someone suggested this
to me a long time ago I didn't believe them).
Jay Prychidny
JPry...@Netcom.CA
---------------------------------------------
Please remove nospam from my address to reply
Andy Bates
In article <3492e5d...@news.usf.edu>, brew...@ij.net (Brewing Tea) wrote:
> :>What titles are you experiencing "Join Lines" in?
> Yeah, I know... someone already informed me I was wrong. I have
> never seen a movie with "join lines", I just heard about them.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've seen join lines on the Blazing Saddles DVD.
Right?
Andy Bates.
Andy Bates
In article <6724nu$u...@seminole.gate.net>, Jack Laughlin
<num...@seminole.gate.net> wrote:
> Multiplicity is also quite, quite bad in P&S. Half the time they don't
> even bother to pan to the person speaking so dialogue just floats from
> off screen.
Yeah, but when you hear somebody speak from offscreen, just say to
yourself, "Well, that's probably Michael Keaton."
Andy Bates.
Benjamin Johnson
Mike Kohary
Adam Wade wrote:
>
> The P/S version of THE JUROR is the most distracting thing I have ever
> seen. When it "pans" it does this weird thing; the only way I could
> describe it is like in certain side scrolling video games when you cross
> from one area to another (on the same level -- think METROID) the screen
> kind of moves while your charachter stays in the same place. I think it's
> on HBO this month.
>
> Adam, who realized after he pressed "send" that people would immediately
> begin laughing because he mentioned THE JUROR...
The Juror. LOL! (just kidding)
Is it the same panning thing that they use in "The Fan"? I think it's a
new digital pan-n-scan technique, and you're right: it's awful. It's
obvioulsy noticeable *every* time it's used, and highly distracting.
Ugly.
Mike
--
Seattle, WA
http://kohary.simplenet.com
Tony Rush
I noticed it used in a restaurant scene in "Cable Guy" (yuk) and I
noticed it recently in the first restaurant scene of "My Best Friend's
Wedding"....maybe it's only used in restaurants? :)
Everyone have a Merry, Merry Christmas!
Tony
Fandar
> I noticed it used in a restaurant scene in "Cable Guy" (yuk)
> Tony
I remember that. My friend and I rewinded like three times it was just
so wierd. All the more reason to watch letterbox.
--
Fandar
When replying remove nospam.
"When single shines the triple sun, what was sundererd and undone. Shall
be whole, the two made one. By gelfling hand or else by none. " Ancient
prophecy.
Thad Floryan
Tony Rush <dire...@mindspring.com> wrote:
| Mike Kohary wrote:
| >
| > Adam Wade wrote:
| > >
| > > The P/S version of THE JUROR is the most distracting thing I have ever
| > > seen. When it "pans" it does this weird thing; the only way I could
| > > describe it is like in certain side scrolling video games when you cross
| > > from one area to another (on the same level -- think METROID) the screen
| > > kind of moves while your charachter stays in the same place. I think it's
| > > on HBO this month.
|
| noticed it recently in the first restaurant scene of "My Best Friend's
| Wedding"....maybe it's only used in restaurants? :)
Heh.
I believe what you're describing is actually the "effect" of pulldown
required to display a 24 fps movie on an NTSC ~30 fps display.
The transposition is 2 of one, 3 of the next, 2 of the next, 3 ....
and can be really bad with some films having scenes looking out of a
car's side window while the car is moving (which is equivalent to the
fast pan in your restaurant scene).
I've noticed jerky motion of background characters walking right-to-left
in broadcast TV and all forms of video displayed on NTSC devices. Even
HDTV will have these problems.
As much as I enjoy home [video] theater, there's no substitute for in-theater
film viewing.
Thad
Matt Martinez
Tony Rush wrote:
> I noticed it used in a restaurant scene in "Cable Guy" (yuk) and I
> noticed it recently in the first restaurant scene of "My Best Friend's
> Wedding"....maybe it's only used in restaurants? :)
One thing I've noticed about all Columbia/TriStar home videos is that they all
have terrible pan and scan. I mean, pan and scan always sucks, but whoever's in
charge at Sony's home video department really needs to be replaced or something.
--
Matt Martinez <mma...@bgnet.bgsu.edu>
Mr. Boy
Thad Floryan wrote:
>
> Tony Rush <dire...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> | Mike Kohary wrote:
> | >
> | > Adam Wade wrote:
> | > >
> | > > The P/S version of THE JUROR is the most distracting thing I have ever
> | > > seen. When it "pans" it does this weird thing; the only way I could
> | > > describe it is like in certain side scrolling video games when you cross
> | > > from one area to another (on the same level -- think METROID) the screen
> | > > kind of moves while your charachter stays in the same place. I think it's
> | > > on HBO this month.
> |
> | noticed it recently in the first restaurant scene of "My Best Friend's
> | Wedding"....maybe it's only used in restaurants? :)
>
>
> I believe what you're describing is actually the "effect" of pulldown
> required to display a 24 fps movie on an NTSC ~30 fps display.
This can't be the cause, because that doesn't happen in widescreen, and
not in most P & S movies either. It must be just the particular
technique used in the P&S.
-Mr. Boy
http://www.mrboy.com
Mr. Boy
geoffrey alexander wrote:
>
> "Nigel Stone" <nst...@ihug.co.nz> writes:
>
> >Jack Laughlin wrote in message <66tfhd$i...@dakota.gate.net>...
> >>Not in anyway defending P&S (which sucks) but there is at least one case
> >where P&S is preferable over LTX, and thats for movies shot in Super35. You
> >actually lose more than you gain in films like The Abyss, which is why I
> >always find it funny that places like suncoast use the Abyss as its example
> >for why you should get the letterbox version. (I haven't seen that
> >particular sign up in awhile so maybe they did finally learn)
> >>
> >>But 99% of the time Letterbox is the way to go.
> >>
> >>num...@gate.net
> >>
>
> >While I agree in part, I think that the 'true' version of the film is the
> >one shown in theaters. That's where (for me anyway) movies trully exist. We
> >at home can emulate the the theater, but not match it, eg. no (or much
> >smaller) audience, comparatively bad picture, smaller picture etc. So
> >anything I can do to recreate the feel of the theater (which Ltrbxing does
> >for me instantly) the better. I also think that we should remeber that James
> >Cameron is a bit of a wierdo in that he is definitely the only 'name'
> >director that I know of (well maybe Roland Emerick, but only for ID4) who
> >actually pays great consideration to how his films look P&S'ed which he
> >himself has said he prefers at home(!) 99.999% of other directors do not
> >follow this though. So let's just say, James Cameron its up to you; ever
> >other director that's ever drawn breath you want to avoid P&S like the
> >eventually end up and they're avaliable on video forever, but maybe, what,
> >only a year at theaters. Any thoughts on this?
>
> don't think most people are aware of how aspect ratios differ even between
> auditoriums in the same multiplex -- and DEFINITELY in the older houses. To
> speak of a single 'theatrical ratio' is ludicrous. for that reason, as far
> as what is seen on video, I'd prefer the director's intentions, where
> available -- even if this means (as in Kubrick's case) he will use the full
> frame of an Academy print of The Shining or FMJ even though they were masked
> to various wider ratios in the theatre. He's a stickler for how his films
> appear on video (cf. Dr. Strangelove's variable aspects) and if that's what
> he wants to present, that's what I want to see.
>
> --
> Geoffrey Alexander
>
> finger geof...@beethoven.iavalley.cc.ia.us
> for pgp public key, website addresses, and other fun things.
There isn't really a SINGLE ratio used. There are two that are commonly
used, 1.85:1 for films shot on 35mm, and 2.35:1 for films shot on 70mm.
Conventional TV is 1.33:1, and I believe Digital TV will be either 1.5
or 1.7:1, either way, still losing some of the picture.
Mr. Boy
The easiest way to prove him wrong is to show the Universal Pictures
logo. I currently have two copies of the film "Dragonheart", one P&S,
the other WS at 2.35:1 ratio. in the P&S version, the spinning world and
UNIVERSAL logo uses up the whole screen, but in the WS version, the
logo's in the middle, and to either side are nebulae in the distance.
This is proof positive example that the opponents of Letterboxing are
wrong to say that it's censorship.
Mr. Boy
Jack Laughlin wrote:
>
> In rec.arts.movies.current-films Nigel Stone <nst...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
> : Good God! Its not in almost every case, its every case that benefits from
> : letterboxing. I can't believe anyone would want P&S over Ltrbx. Even in the
> : badly understood area of cropping the top and bottom for the theaters and
>
> Not in anyway defending P&S (which sucks) but there is at least one case
> where P&S is preferable over LTX, and thats for movies shot in Super35.
> You actually lose more than you gain in films like The Abyss, which is
> why I always find it funny that places like suncoast use the Abyss as its
> example for why you should get the letterbox version. (I haven't seen that
> particular sign up in awhile so maybe they did finally learn)
>
> But 99% of the time Letterbox is the way to go.
>
> num...@gate.net
>
sure they used Super35, because I always thought Cameron only used 70mm.
Mr. Boy
Mike Kohary wrote:
>
> Jack Laughlin wrote:
> >
> > In rec.arts.movies.current-films Nigel Stone <nst...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> >
> > : Good God! Its not in almost every case, its every case that benefits from
> > : letterboxing. I can't believe anyone would want P&S over Ltrbx. Even in the
> > : badly understood area of cropping the top and bottom for the theaters and
> >
> > Not in anyway defending P&S (which sucks) but there is at least one case
> > where P&S is preferable over LTX, and thats for movies shot in Super35.
> > You actually lose more than you gain in films like The Abyss, which is
> > why I always find it funny that places like suncoast use the Abyss as its
> > example for why you should get the letterbox version. (I haven't seen that
> > particular sign up in awhile so maybe they did finally learn)
>
> but it's not the way it was presented in the theater, and for me that's
> the defining point. Directors like Cameron shoot their films with its
> future TV presentation in mind. However, the cameraman sees the frame
> as it will be shown on the big screen, and that's the way it's shot.
> I'd rather see Abyss letterboxed simply because that's the way it looked
> on the big screen.
>
> > But 99% of the time Letterbox is the way to go.
>
>
> Mike
>
I recently made a short film (on video, unfortunately, but it was still
a film!) and out of sheer respect for filmmaking, I letterboxed it in
post production, and it really made the film look better. See, even
letterboxing something that wasn't meant for the format makes it better!
geoffrey alexander
> geoffrey alexander wrote:
> >
> > "Nigel Stone" <nst...@ihug.co.nz> writes:
> >
> > >Jack Laughlin wrote in message <66tfhd$i...@dakota.gate.net>...
> > >>Not in anyway defending P&S (which sucks) but there is at least one case
> > >where P&S is preferable over LTX, and thats for movies shot in Super35. You
> > >actually lose more than you gain in films like The Abyss, which is why I
> > >always find it funny that places like suncoast use the Abyss as its example
> > >for why you should get the letterbox version. (I haven't seen that
> > >particular sign up in awhile so maybe they did finally learn)
> > >>
> > >>But 99% of the time Letterbox is the way to go.
> > >>
And, usually, anything between Academy and 2:1 to 1.3:1 in every multiplex
aud... :)
Mr. Boy
ni...@ex.starwars.modeler.com wrote:
>
> I've seen a couple of films (though I can't recall specific ones
> right now) where you have a typical conversation-in-a-car scene, where
> the camera in on the hood and both actors are in frame...or at least
> and forth like some damn tennis match, or in one case (I wish I could
> remember the title, it was something I saw just last week) they simply
> cut each actor's face in half in trying to fit them both on screen. Both
> methods are extremely irritating because you miss the actors' facial
> reactions during the conversation.
or sometimes, they do the squish method, where the picture is elongated
vertically to fit the entire widescreen frame into the confinds of
video. They did something like this to Disney's "Hunchback of Notre
Dame" when the camera pans up into the bells and they flash the logo, it
is squished in the middle, and is slightly off center, making for a very
ugly image.
geoffrey alexander
In article <349DB4...@geocities.com>, "Mr. Boy" <yev...@geocities.com>
wrote:
> Thad Floryan wrote:
The Boy is here.
g.
David Mullen
>I thought that "Abyss" looked great in Widescreen at 2.35:1. Are you
>sure they used Super35, because I always thought Cameron only used 70mm.
Cameron has released many of his films in 70mm prints, but they have all been
blow-ups, usually from Super35.
"Terminator" and "Aliens" were standard 1.85; "The Abyss", "Terminator 2",
"True Lies", and now "Titanic" were all shot in Super35 and released in 35mm
anamorphic and 70mm.
The ONLY project that he has shot in a large format was "T2: 3D" (or whatever
it was called), a special-venue short film photographed in a twin 65mm camera
3-D format.
Of course, many efx shots in his films have used larger formats like
VistaVision for shooting elements for compositing.
David M.
geoffrey alexander
In article <349DBC...@geocities.com>, "Mr. Boy" <yev...@geocities.com>
wrote:
> Jack Laughlin wrote:
> >
> > In rec.arts.movies.current-films Nigel Stone <nst...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> >
> > : Good God! Its not in almost every case, its every case that benefits from
> > : letterboxing. I can't believe anyone would want P&S over Ltrbx. Even
in the
> > : badly understood area of cropping the top and bottom for the theaters and
> >
> > Not in anyway defending P&S (which sucks) but there is at least one case
> > where P&S is preferable over LTX, and thats for movies shot in Super35.
> > You actually lose more than you gain in films like The Abyss, which is
> > why I always find it funny that places like suncoast use the Abyss as its
> > example for why you should get the letterbox version. (I haven't seen that
> > particular sign up in awhile so maybe they did finally learn)
> >
> > But 99% of the time Letterbox is the way to go.
> >
> > num...@gate.net
> >
> I thought that "Abyss" looked great in Widescreen at 2.35:1. Are you
> sure they used Super35, because I always thought Cameron only used 70mm.
The magic of Super35mm. Works VERY well for me. A sharp positive, weren't it?
g.
Adam Wade
In article <349DB4...@geocities.com>, "Mr. Boy" <yev...@geocities.com>
wrote:
> Thad Floryan wrote:
> >
> > Tony Rush <dire...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > | Mike Kohary wrote:
> > | >
> > | > Adam Wade wrote:
> > | > >
> > | > > The P/S version of THE JUROR is the most distracting thing I have ever
> > | > > seen. When it "pans" it does this weird thing; the only way I could
> > | > > describe it is like in certain side scrolling video games when
you cross
> > | > > from one area to another (on the same level -- think METROID)
the screen
> > | > > kind of moves while your charachter stays in the same place. I
think it's
> > | > > on HBO this month.
> > |
> > | I noticed it used in a restaurant scene in "Cable Guy" (yuk) and I
> > | noticed it recently in the first restaurant scene of "My Best Friend's
> > | Wedding"....maybe it's only used in restaurants? :)
> >
> > Heh.
> >
> > I believe what you're describing is actually the "effect" of pulldown
> > required to display a 24 fps movie on an NTSC ~30 fps display.
>
> This can't be the cause, because that doesn't happen in widescreen, and
> not in most P & S movies either. It must be just the particular
> technique used in the P&S.
Sorry to quote all of this, but it seems kind of warrented here.
The last poster is correct. I am the one who complained about "The
Juror", and I have seen it in the theater, on VHS, and own it on
laserdisc. The disc is great; the problems are with the "digital panning"
-- and thanks to whomever changed the subject, because I didn't know the
term I was trying to find.
Adam
--
Read the NEW SCREAM film FAQ at : http://www.cyberTours.com/~merch/
Luis Canau
Matt Martinez <mma...@bgnet.bgsu.edu> wrote:
[...]
>One thing I've noticed about all Columbia/TriStar home videos is that they all
>have terrible pan and scan. I mean, pan and scan always sucks, but whoever's in
>charge at Sony's home video department really needs to be replaced or something.
Maybe they are the same people who write stuff in catalogues concerning 16:9
TV sets, saying that if you buy it you will be able to -- tcham tcham -- see
the movie "has the director intended". From time to time they also say 16:9 is
the size of the cinema screen. Imagine you have a bunch of panned and scanned
movies, you buy a 16:9 TV and there you have the chopped parts of the movies
apppearing by magic. On another angle they also recommend streching movies for
16:9. The ones they distribute cut. A local broadcaster is showing some things
in PALPlus/16:9 and they say it will show "more". Then they use "Apocalypse
Now" and "Blade Runner" - scope movies - in the promotions... cut to 16:9.
Liars liars liars. Everyone.
Luis Canau___________________________________________________________
<luis....@mail.EUnot.pt>
(please change EUnot to EUnet/p.f. troque EUnot por EUnet)
HP de Cinema: http://home.EUnet.pt/id005098/cinedie (in Portuguese)
P r o - w i d e s c r e e n
_____________________________________________________________________
CGI department
Here's the answer. The weird effect you've noticed is not from the
pulldown, nor because of the intermittent nature of film (well, not
really.) This happens when, during a telecine transfer, the DoP says he
wants character A to be on TV the whole time, but this character actually
moves from left to right (or vice-versa) in the fullscreen image. So, in
the cinema, the character is in motion and the background is still. On
TV, the background is now moving and character A is centred in the
screen. Since film is only 24 fps the image is not very sharp, so he is
blurred (which looks ok when he's moving.) This explains the odd effect
- you are seeing a motion blur when there "shouldn't" be one.
We don't get asked to do that very much here, but it has happened. Quite
often it looks passable on DBeta, but by the time it goes to composite
it's guaranteed to suck.
Matt Fisher
Eyes Post Group
Lamar Atwood
CGI department wrote:
You obviously know quite a bit about this because of the field you're in
and I'm not one to argue with an expert....but the scenes that I have
noticed this "digital" panning are scenes where the background is
stationary and the characters are not moving across the screen. Rather,
the two I cited ("Cable Guy" and "My Best Friend's Wedding") are
restaurant scenes in which the characters are seated on opposite sides
of the table and the "camera" pans from the left to the right (in both
instances). The movement of the "camera" is so smooth and almost
"scrolling" that the result is a very digital, mechanized motion. I can
understand the explanation that you gave, but I think the instances I
saw are either of a different cause or are, at most , a "distant
relative" of the phenomenon that you're speaking of.
Tony Rush
Respond to mailto:dire...@mindspring.com
webm...@film.tierranet.com
> There isn't really a SINGLE ratio used. There are two that are commonly
> used, 1.85:1 for films shot on 35mm, and 2.35:1 for films shot on 70mm.
> Conventional TV is 1.33:1, and I believe Digital TV will be either 1.5
> or 1.7:1, either way, still losing some of the picture.
Not quiet. I think 2.35:1 is used more now than 1.85:1. 70mm film is
rarely used and many times is simply a blow-up from a 35mm negative. Not
quiet as good as filming in 65mm but better than nothing. I hear that
some theaters are showing a 70mm print of Titanic. I'd like to see that.
Luis Canau
"Mr. Boy" <yev...@geocities.com> wrote:
[...]
>There isn't really a SINGLE ratio used. There are two that are commonly
>used, 1.85:1 for films shot on 35mm, and 2.35:1 for films shot on 70mm.
>Conventional TV is 1.33:1, and I believe Digital TV will be either 1.5
>or 1.7:1, either way, still losing some of the picture.
1.85:1 and 2.35:1 (or 2.39:1) on 35mm. 70 mm has already an aspect ratio of
2.2:1 (without masking or anamorphic lenses), if I'm not wrong. Europe uses a
lot 1.66:1. The future TV ratio is already in use: 16:9, that is, 1.77:1. A
scope movie will lose 25% and not 43%. It's better? Well, "black bars" will be
much smaller, if people wouldn't worry about filled screens.
Matt Martinez
geoffrey alexander wrote:
> The magic of Super35mm. Works VERY well for me. A sharp positive, weren't it?
Super 35 "magic"? Not to me! It's pandering, plain and simple, and I find it
offensive! I'd rather go without seeing the extra information, thank you.
--
Matt Martinez <mma...@bgnet.bgsu.edu>
Curtiss Hammock
In article <349F26...@nowhere.com>, CGI department
<no_...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>Here's the answer. The weird effect you've noticed is not from the
>pulldown, nor because of the intermittent nature of film (well, not
>really.) This happens when, during a telecine transfer, the DoP says he
>wants character A to be on TV the whole time, but this character actually
>moves from left to right (or vice-versa) in the fullscreen image. So, in
>the cinema, the character is in motion and the background is still. On
>TV, the background is now moving and character A is centred in the
>screen. Since film is only 24 fps the image is not very sharp, so he is
>blurred (which looks ok when he's moving.) This explains the odd effect
>- you are seeing a motion blur when there "shouldn't" be one.
I've seen the effect in question, and found it very annoying. Thanks a lot
for the explanation. That *is* disconcerting.
Curtiss
---------------------
Curtiss R.Hammock II
MacBeth Design
Atlanta, GA, USA
cur...@macbeth.com
www.macbeth.com
FilmJerk
webm...@film.tierranet.com wrote in message
<349E34...@film.tierranet.com>...
>> There isn't really a SINGLE ratio used. There are two that are commonly
>> used, 1.85:1 for films shot on 35mm, and 2.35:1 for films shot on 70mm.
>> Conventional TV is 1.33:1, and I believe Digital TV will be either 1.5
>> or 1.7:1, either way, still losing some of the picture.
>
>Not quite. I think 2.35:1 is used more now than 1.85:1. 70mm film is
>rarely used and many times is simply a blow-up from a 35mm negative. Not
>quiet as good as filming in 65mm but better than nothing. I hear that
>some theaters are showing a 70mm print of Titanic. I'd like to see that.
2.35 (actually 2.40, but still called 2.35 for some strange reason) and 1.85
are pretty much evenly used now.
The only time 70mm (actually 65mm in production, then transferred to 70mm,
to add the soundtrack) is used in production is during the effects stage.
Before
FAR AND AWAY, the last film to shoot solely in 70mm was RYAN'S
DAUGHTER in 1970.
Yes, there are 70mm prints of TITANIC. In San Jose, if you are willing to
brave the rude employees and atrocious projection, you can head over
to the Syufy Century 22.
Edward
B. Baker
In <67pg0s$e...@chile.earthlink.net> "FilmJerk"
<spamless...@earthlink.net> writes:
>snip<
>The only time 70mm (actually 65mm in production, then transferred to
>70mm, to add the soundtrack) is used in production is during the
>effects stage.
>
>Before FAR AND AWAY, the last film to shoot solely in 70mm was RYAN'S
>DAUGHTER in 1970.
>Edward
John Frankenheimer's 1971 THE HORSEMEN, originally planned by Columbia
as a roadshow attraction, was filmed entirely in 70mm [Super
Panavision]. Ultimately the movie was only shown in 70mm in a handful
of theatres internationally. [Columbia's 70mm 1969 MACKENNA'S GOLD,
also planned as a roadshow, had earlier suffered a similar fate.]
Disney's 1982 TRON was also entirely photographed in 70mm [Super
Panavision 70].
-- B. Baker
David Mullen
>>Before FAR AND AWAY, the last film to shoot solely in 70mm was RYAN'S
>>DAUGHTER in 1970.
>John Frankenheimer's 1971 THE HORSEMEN, originally planned by Columbia
>as a roadshow attraction, was filmed entirely in 70mm [Super
>Panavision].
>Disney's 1982 TRON was also entirely photographed in 70mm [Super
>Panavision 70].
Don't forget "Hamlet", "Baraka", and parts of "Little Buddha" & "Brainstorm".
Was "Patton" before or after "Ryan's Daughter"?
David M.
Starman
In article <ericusc.64...@ucla.edu>,
And let's not forget "Chronos". Also, every IMAX film although I think
you're splitting hairs when it comes to IMAX because they use 70mm film
stock, just not filmed in the conventional way.
Just a note: although the DVD of Chronos was released by Simitar, it looks
leaps and bounds better than the LD counterpart.
Mike
Mr. Boy
FilmJerk wrote:
>
> webm...@film.tierranet.com wrote in message
> <349E34...@film.tierranet.com>...
> >> There isn't really a SINGLE ratio used. There are two that are commonly
> >> used, 1.85:1 for films shot on 35mm, and 2.35:1 for films shot on 70mm.
> >> Conventional TV is 1.33:1, and I believe Digital TV will be either 1.5
> >> or 1.7:1, either way, still losing some of the picture.
> >
> >Not quite. I think 2.35:1 is used more now than 1.85:1. 70mm film is
> >rarely used and many times is simply a blow-up from a 35mm negative. Not
> >quiet as good as filming in 65mm but better than nothing. I hear that
> >some theaters are showing a 70mm print of Titanic. I'd like to see that.
>
> 2.35 (actually 2.40, but still called 2.35 for some strange reason) and 1.85
> are pretty much evenly used now.
>
> to add the soundtrack) is used in production is during the effects stage.
> FAR AND AWAY, the last film to shoot solely in 70mm was RYAN'S
> DAUGHTER in 1970.
>
> brave the rude employees and atrocious projection, you can head over
> to the Syufy Century 22.
>
> Edward
I hear that Disney is making a film on 70mm. I forget what it's called,
but, they are.
I watched a 70 mm print of "Titanic" at the Star Southfield
Entertainment Center in Southfield, MI.
-Mr. Boy
Greg Brady
Branagh's HAMLET was shot in 70mm.
Bill
--
Visit Film Freak Central:
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/7504
Now available without a prescription
David Mullen
>>2.35 (actually 2.40, but still called 2.35 for some strange reason) and 1.85
>>are pretty much evenly used now.
Actually I think about 1/3 of features made are in 2.35 - it's just that over
half of the big-budget Hollywood features are 2.35 nowadays.
>>
>Branagh's Hamlet was filmed in 70mm, wasn't it?
Yes (actually, it was filmed in 65mm and printed in 70mm). Same format as
"2001".
David M.
Rob Gibson
Why in the hell would you waste your money on a second copy of that shit
movie?
Mr. Boy <yev...@geocities.com> wrote in article
<349DB8...@geocities.com>...
Spike
Lamar Atwood wrote:
>
> You obviously know quite a bit about this because of the field you're
> in
> and I'm not one to argue with an expert....but the scenes that I have
> noticed this "digital" panning are scenes where the background is
> stationary and the characters are not moving across the screen.
> Rather,
> the two I cited ("Cable Guy" and "My Best Friend's Wedding") are
> restaurant scenes in which the characters are seated on opposite sides
> of the table and the "camera" pans from the left to the right (in both
> instances). The movement of the "camera" is so smooth and almost
> "scrolling" that the result is a very digital, mechanized motion. I
> can
> understand the explanation that you gave, but I think the instances I
> saw are either of a different cause or are, at most , a "distant
> relative" of the phenomenon that you're speaking of.
I think the effect you see is when they P&S a wide shot, in which you
can see people at the extreme edges of the shot, and they have to "scan"
back and forth across a stationary shot to switch back and forth between
the characters on the screen.
They did the same thing in several scenes in the P&S version of Hamlet.
It looks horrible.
Alicia
--
@
/ spi...@mindspring.com
<<@@@@{}===========================>>
\ spike...@aol.com
@
"What a piece of work is Duncan MacLeod!
How noble in reason, how infinite in faculty,
in form and moving how express and admirable,
in action how like an angel,
in apprehension how like a god!"
--shameless paraphrase of Hamlet <eg>
Stephen Rowley
>
>webm...@film.tierranet.com wrote in message
><349E34...@film.tierranet.com>...
>>> There isn't really a SINGLE ratio used. There are two that are commonly
>>> used, 1.85:1 for films shot on 35mm, and 2.35:1 for films shot on 70mm.
>>> Conventional TV is 1.33:1, and I believe Digital TV will be either 1.5
>>> or 1.7:1, either way, still losing some of the picture.
>>
>>Not quite. I think 2.35:1 is used more now than 1.85:1. 70mm film is
>>rarely used and many times is simply a blow-up from a 35mm negative. Not
>>quiet as good as filming in 65mm but better than nothing. I hear that
>>some theaters are showing a 70mm print of Titanic. I'd like to see that.
>
>2.35 (actually 2.40, but still called 2.35 for some strange reason) and 1.85
>are pretty much evenly used now.
>
>The only time 70mm (actually 65mm in production, then transferred to 70mm,
>to add the soundtrack) is used in production is during the effects stage.
>Before
>FAR AND AWAY, the last film to shoot solely in 70mm was RYAN'S
>DAUGHTER in 1970.
>
>Yes, there are 70mm prints of TITANIC. In San Jose, if you are willing to
>brave the rude employees and atrocious projection, you can head over
>to the Syufy Century 22.
>
>
>Edward
>
>
>
Branagh's Hamlet was filmed in 70mm, wasn't it?
Stephen Rowley
s.rowley@Not!ugrad.unimelb.edu.au
(To e-mail me, remove the Not! from my address)
Movie reviews & essays at Cinephobia:
http://www.werple.net.au/~lerowley/cinephob.htm
VLogvinov
In article <ericusc.64...@ucla.edu>, eri...@ucla.edu (David Mullen)
writes:
>>>Before FAR AND AWAY, the last film to shoot solely in 70mm was
>>RYAN'S DAUGHTER in 1970.
>>
>>John Frankenheimer's 1971 THE HORSEMEN,
>>originally planned by Columbia
>>as a roadshow attraction, was filmed entirely
>>in 70mm [Super
>>Panavision].
>>Disney's 1982 TRON was also entirely
>>photographed in 70mm [Super
>>Panavision 70].
>
>Don't forget "Hamlet",
>"Baraka", and parts of "Little Buddha" & "Brainstorm".
>Was "Patton" before or after "Ryan's Daughter"?
>
>David M.
I missed the earlier postings, but did anyone mention that Kubrick's
new/long-in-production film (Eyes Wide Shut- with Cruise & Kidman) is reported
to be filming (at least partially) in 65mm?
Vic
Jimbo
>
>
> They did the same thing in several scenes in the P&S version of Hamlet.
> It looks horrible.
>
> Alicia
I could not agree more. The worst part of it all is the first 5 mins.
into the film where the scanned version can't even place 3 guys
in one shot at the same time.
The only reason that I watch a panned tape of a film shot in 70mm
is because I HAVE NO CHOICE.
What a lovely film to be wasted in video release.
Jimbo
Tick Tock Tick Tak Tock Tick Tock Tick Tock Tick
Tick Tock Tick Tock Tick Tock ..............
Neil Sarver
Stephen Rowley wrote:
> FilmJerk wrote:
> >Before FAR AND AWAY, the last film to shoot solely in 70mm was RYAN'S
^^^^^^
> >DAUGHTER in 1970.
> Branagh's Hamlet was filmed in 70mm, wasn't it?
Yes.
--
Neil
Help get "The Wind in the Willows" by Terry Jones a wide release -
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/3271/witw.html
--
The Bleeding Tree
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/3271/tree.html
Softy Speaks Out
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/3271/speaks.html
--
"In every country the Communists have taken over, the first thing they
do is outlaw cockfighting."
- John Monks, Oklahoma state representative