Sam Longoria

It's only in the recent decade that reading tech articles (which I've dearly loved all my life so far) has become awkward and horrid to me, by their current poor attention to grammar, syntax, and spelling, and the actual encouragement for tolerance toward such substandard communication. Persons who actually can write and spell, and expect that of others are called "grammar nazi" and worse by...well, boobs. Before that, poorly-written articles would have been criticized and removed, or at least Edited by some professional Editor or Moderator somewhere, one with actual language skills, and a solid interest in communicating clearly and well. I recognize the sentiment, that I don't belong here any more. I understand it completely. In fact, I agree with it. Rome has fallen. I'm just another annoyance to the Vandals. This particular discussion of a topic with which I'm quite familiar (65mm / 70mm film, and Anamorphic Lenses), with its lame writing and inattention to style, would have been unheard-of twenty years ago, because Cinematographers had then a great pride in their ability to communicate - both in pictures and the written word. Pride, indeed. I am sincere, gentlemen. I felt it was a special club, with special persons, who were educated and articulate. I really liked it, because of the level it represented. Don't believe me? Pore over some old _American Cinematographer_ or _Industrial Photographic_ magazines. My collection goes back to the 1940s, and those guys could write, as well as frame a shot, focus a lens, or release a shutter. To be entirely honest, I wrote my Post because this piece was a "last straw" for me, I just don't want to wade through poorly written articles about my own beloved Art Form any more. Having done so. I hit "Post," to release those feelings and leave here, because there are now just too many pieces like that. ...Then I read other pieces Tyler wrote. I can see he's quite impassioned by the Visual Arts, and sincere. I thought better of my Post. I didn't really have to say anything about how I thought about how he wrote it - I could just leave. I admit I tried to delete it, and the software wouldn't let me. Ha ha! Trapped by my own hand. And yes, when you write a letter of correction, obviously and ironically, you leave a few errors of your own. I assure you, those don't feel great. I apologize if I hurt Tyler's feelings, or made him feel uncomfortable. Didn't want that. I just want articles to be clearly written, because it's a pain to read substandard anything.

Interesting article, but torture to read. Poorly and awkwardly written, with too many errors to correct, but I did anyway. it's "flares," not "flairs." "hurdle" not "hurtle" "nerve-wracking" not "nerve-racking" "was shown" not "was show" "in the '60s" not "in the 60's" "uncalibrated" not "un-calibrated" "more distinctive" not "more unique" "last-ditch effort" not "last ditch effort "3-panel 35mm" not "3 strip 35mm" (Cinerama) "65mm film" not "single 65mm acquisition" "ultra-wide" not ultra wide "Todd-AO" not "the cinema version" "caused by the coatings" not "which had a lot to do with the coatings" "Our modern cameras and stocks are so good, they reveal imperfections in actors, sets, and backdrops" not "Our modern cameras and stocks are so good, it's nearly impossible to have good resolution without showing too many imperfections in the actors, sets or backdrops." And what the hell do these sentences mean? "In some cases, even out of focus areas are overly sharp with modern lenses, making it look unrealistic." (What? If they are out-of-focus, they are not sharp). "These lenses allow the resolution to show through, (What?) "but deliver a softer image throughout with out resorting to filtration." (What?) "Plus, they have a much more artistic look in the out of focus areas.' (What?) "Of course, the other thing which was super-important was anamorphic lens flares." not "Of course, the other thing which was super important was anamorphic lens flairs." "'60s" not "60's' "of which Panavision has very few" not "of which Panavision has very few of" "The dynamics of the situation were about to be taxed further" (What?) "Panavision explained there were no theatrical anamorphic projection lenses" not "Panavision explained there were zero projection lenses available to unsqueeze in the theaters." "hurdle" not "hurtle" "So the grease has oxidized" or "The grease has hardened" or "The grease has turned to varnish" not "So the grease has turned into concrete and corroded the brass." "hurdle" not "hurdle" "cameras" not "camera's" "so the rear lens elements protruded excessively, and occluded the camera mirror shutter" not "so the glass could protrude further into the camera. This proved to be a huge problem with modern reflex cameras, the glass actually touched the mirror! "nerve-wracking" not "nerve racking" "2000-ft" not "2000ft" "figure out projection" not "figure out the projection aspect." "straightforward" not straight forward" "The Master," "Interstellar" and even "Inherent Vice," not "The Master, Interstellar and even Inherent Vice," "The Hateful Eight" not The Hateful Eight "The projectors were calibrated" not "The projectors will calibrated" "negative-degree" not "negative degree" "mimic" not "mimmic" "their breaths" not "their breath" "Far and Away" not Far and Away "successfully resurrect" not "successful resurrect" "well-established" not "well established" "Hollywood" not "hollywood" "P.T. Anderson's" not "PT Anderson's" "time-frames / schedules" not "timeframes/schedules" "There have been financial battles as well" not "There has been financial battles as well" "two sound cameras before someone else gets" not "2 sound cameras before someone else get's" "ONE of them" not "ONE of thethem" "Panavision" not "Panavsion" "So there will be another huge investment." not "So there will be another huge investment to make that a reality." "It's apparent the audience was stunned by what we had just seen." not "It's apparent, everyone in the audience was stunned by what we had just seen." "it really shows how inferior digital projection is to film." not "it really shows how far away digital projection is to film." "We sadly realized this format, developed in the '50s" not "It was a sad realization this format developed in the 50's" "but at a huge cost, and yet lower resolution than 65mm prints, struck from the original negative" not "but at a huge cost and still lower resolution then 65mm prints struck off the original negative." "Quentin's goal is to produce all 50 prints from the negative, and deliver an amazing cinematic experience, and bring people back to the theater." not "Quentin's goal is to produce all 50 prints off the negative and deliver an amazing cinematic experience and bring people back to the theater." MUST WASH EYES - TOO MANY TYPOS - TOO LITTLE SCHOOL

I use whatever's on my workshop shelf, toward the front of the stack. Some days it's my Mitchell oil bottle, or my can of WD-40 (kerosene and light oil), or 3-in-1 oil, they all work. Oil's well that ends well. Sam indycine FREE Report: "Learn Cinematography for $1/day" http://samlongoria.com/samrep.htm