Alex Lindblom

Can somebody please explain this to me, I am going crazy thinking about it? Projectors in the native 1280x720 format when they play back a DVD in 720x576/480. Do they have to rescale it to fit to the larger matrix, and by doing so actually degrading the picture quality? If it so why aren?t anybody producing 720x576 chips? And also how does the DLP chips in 858 x 480 deal whit the, higher resolution of PAL DVD?s?

A sad day, but that?s the price we pay for living. But Tonino Delli Colli and Leone left us with something that never dies -- Once Upon A Time In The West. That movie will live forever. It was also the reason I decided to become a filmmaker. Thank you for all the pictures and lovely memories. Tonino Delli Colli -- we?ll never forget you.

Hi again. We all know that Leone shot his western with his beloved Techniscope 2c Arri and used the sorely missed Technicolor dye transfer process. But what in gods name did he use for lenses and stocks I?ve been looking for an answer everywhere. Even Christopher Faryling?s excellent book on the man ?Something to do with death?, has missed this subject. So if anybody knows something about it, I?ll be a very happy man. Thank you.

www.lesbosher.co.uk

I also have the DVD and if I remember correctly J-P Jeunet said the DVD version was deliberately tinkered with, so it?s even greener than you ever saw it in the theatre.

This maybe just a little bit off topic but? The use of fake anamorphic flares in non scope pictures real annoys me. Watched Buffy the other day and saw just that ( and you would think that a guy, who watches Buffy would be pretty tolerant ; ) But it?s a phenomenon that?s creeping up a more and more often -- maybe I am just being anal -- but I still don?t like it.

First I wane, thank you all for the very interesting, thoughts that has been brought up. ?You should really be judging contrast and color in a theatre, rather than from a DVD.? Totally agree with you, but where I live, sadly we don?t have the theatrical release we should have. And quality always shines trough, watched Poltergeist on TV last night, my 32 wide, that mean it was letterbox. And didn?t use at the left and right side off the screen, in other words very small, but it still looked great ( maybe to great for a scary movie ) ?Mystic River?. It wasn?t meant as film specific topic but since you asked I am glad to share my thoughts. I am a big Eastwood fan, and his collaboration with Green and especially Surtees ( by the way does anybody now why he almost completely has vanished in to tv work, miss him a great deal ) Now when Stern has taken over, I mean Blood work, worked fine for me nothing special but good solid work, Mystic on the other hand with it?s washed out grays and blues and flat ( how they did it http://www.cameraguild.com/magazine/stoo903.htm ) One of the very few film in resent years where I felt the cinematography really, do I dear to say it? Hurt the movie. Oh well something interesting happened the other night saw ? The Quiet American. And thought it looked very nice so I searched the treads and find that Mr. Mullen also seemed to like it a year back said something about it reminded about the older Agfa stocks. And it has some kind of older look to it ( not quit the look I am searching for ). But we have to remember that it was done by the highly respectable Doyle, and it seems like the ?old look? now days always comes from the top cinematographers. As a final thought, because you run in to this every now and then in interviews and forums like this and so on. Why don?t Kodak ( and Fuji ) develop an alternative stock, that is clearly different from the others ( in my view it should represent some of the older stocks, but theoretically it could look like -- well anything ) I am considering my self the next generation?s filmmakers, and I am not only speaking for myself, but we are a bunch that real feels that movies looked better before and we like to try and bring them back there. Thank you for listening.

Is it just me or has the movies become flatter. What I mean by that is movies from the 60?s trough early 90?s ( very roughly ), seems to me to have what should I call it, more depth or 3-D fell to them, more texture maybe. And I really prefer that look, and my guess is that it has to do with the film stocks, because even modern anamorphic?s doesn?t seem to have that depth. For example what should we take? Mystic river ( even if the that look came out of lab work more then from the stock ) and Stuck on you. Two very different anamorphic movies, but both with out any sense of ?depth? to them. This flattens is even more, apparent in non scope pictures. If you take and compare Open range ( good movie ) with it?s S-35 negative and DI ? process, with modern day emulsions and lenses to something like Once upon a time in the west. With the slightly smaller Techniscope gate and old lenses and compare them, just freeze frame anywhere on the DVD. In my mind there?s no question which film has the best picture quality ? OUATITW ( I am just talking but the picture, not composition or anything else ). Is it just me or has anyone else picked up on this -- appreciate your thoughts.

A very sad day, indeed. But also a reminder that life is all to short. And that we should do that thing today, and not wait for tomorrow. Go in peace Neal.

Are you just the cinematographer or are u also directing/producing/writing the film on a low budget. If that is the case I would take a close look at the script 133p action script sound like a very long movie for a low budget project. I strongly recommend that you take another look at it. Remember that El mariachi vas shot from a 45 page long script ( even if it wasn?t written in ?standard? format ).

Thank you David. For taking us on this journey with Shadowboxer. Great stuff as always.

Hi I have been reading these forms for quite a while. But now felt is was time for my first post. We are planning to shoot our first feature in jul ? aug. I have shoot several short in 16 mm before. So anyway, now to my questions. The movie is set outdoors so we are planning to shoot it as far as possible with natural light, so with this in mind what do you recommend for? 1.Film stock which one is best suited for these kinds of conditions? 2.Lenses, I was Think about a Agenieux 17-102 mm because I love using the zoom lenses since my 16 mm days. But maybe I should go for faster primes to squeeze some more light in there. 3.Pale Rider, I have a vague memory that it was shoot completely in natural light, but maybe I am completely wrong here. Alex.